In the middle of the second century B.C., when
the Parthians conquered Mesopotamia, the Seleucid state was decadent,
wom out by a long and futile struggle to get control of Egypt. The
Parthians did not follow up their conquest, because by that time they
were being attacked in their eastern provinces by Mongolian tribes, and
had no military resources to spare for the west. But there was a third
power close at hand which was able to take advantage of the weakness of
Syria, Armenia under an ambitious monarch Tigranes, and he conquered
Syria in 83 B.C. But by this time a new power had appeared on the
shores of the Mediterranean, the Roman Republic, not a conquering power
like that of Alexander, but a rather narrowrninded democracy whose
chief aims were to carry on trade successfully and make sure of safety
at home. For safety the Romans gradually carried out the conquest of
Italy, then they tried to exercise a kind of protectorate over all the
other countries around the Mediterranean, and to check any one which
tended to interfere with its safety or commerce. Conquest and expansion
were forced on Rome by circumstances, and were undertaken by Rome only
when foreign rivals threatened its security or its commerce by
commercial rivalry like Carthage or by piracy on the seas over which
Roman commerce passed, as was the case with Pontus.

Italy, a long narrow peninsula with a
protracted coast line necessarily depended on sea power for its own
security as well as for international trade, though that received only
a tardy and grudging recognition in Rome. Gradually it was perceived
that the freedom and prosperity of Italy, which included that of Rome,
depended on control of the Middle Sea, and necessitated a check on the
formation of any great power along its shores which could intercept sea
communications. An attempt at founding such a power was made in 168
B.C., when the Seleucid Antiochus Epiphanes made an attempt to conquer
Egypt. He was camped before the walls of Alexandria when an envoy
arrived from Rome warning him to retire, and that he reluctantly did.
Rome was already a formidable power, and the SeIeucid considered it
wiser not to challenge it. Next, Mithridates VI of Pontus formed
imperial ambitions. He occupied Asia Minor, massacred a number of Roman
citizens, and then invaded Greece, whilst Pontic pirates ranged over
the eastern Mediterranean. The Romans had no wish to interfere in
eastern politics, but this forced them to do so, and the Mithridatic
War followed, which the Romans under Pompey brought to a successful
conclusion in 83 B.C., These events forced Rome into the tangled
political strife of what we now call the Levant, and in 8I B.C. they
were still further drawn in when Alexander II of Egypt died and left
his kingdom by will to the Roman people.

Syria had by then long ceased to be a danger.
Parthian control had passed away from Mesopotamia and Syria, as the
Parthians had to deal with threatening pressure on their own eastern
borders. Under the degenerate Seleucids Syria was near a state of
Anarchy. The real masters of the country were the Arab tribes, many of
them roarning the country as brigands, others settling down in lands
they conquered and forming native states.

Pompey had just completed the Nfithridatic War
when the last Seleudd monarch Antiochus Asiaticus came to the throne,
and thought expedient to obtain formal recognition from Rome. To his
request Pompey replied that Rome would not recognize any monarch who
could not keep his country in order, and by now it was obvious--ihat
the Seleucids could not do this. So in 65 B.C. Syria was annexed and
made a Roman province under a legatus whose first duty was to defend
the frontier against the Parthians, Pompey determining that the River
Euphrates should be recognized as the frontier. But the Arab states
formed along the eastern borders of Syria were left alone, and so the
larger state known as Nabataea, though in 63 Pompey led an expedition
against the Nabataean capital Petra. Thus Syria passed out of Greek
Seleucid control and became part of the Roman Empire. Politically it
was a change, but culturally there was no change, the influence of Rome
was as definitely Greek as that of the Seleucids had been. The cultural
life of Syria and Mesopotamia went on unaffected by the political
change and from that time forward it was the Romans who brought Greek
influence to bear on the Near East.

When Syria became a Roman province it was
secured against the immediate menace of its two oriental neighbours,
Parthia and Armenia. Roman arms protected the border and sometimes
crossed victoriously into enemy territory. But with this began a long
series of wars lasting for some seven centuries, in which the frontier
frequently shifted according to the fortunes of war. There was a
debatable territory between the Tigris river and the Libanus mountains,
which was sometimes GreecoRoman, sometimes Parthian or Persian, and
these political vicissitudes had their effect on the cultural life of
the area involved.

The Emperor Augustus recognized the Euphrates
frontier and allowed the Arab states to remain without interference,
and so matters continued until the accession of Trajan, though the
trade route through Mesopotamia was practically closed because the
Parthians were unable to control the tribesmen along the border. Trajan
decided to carry Roman authority farther east and to bring the
disordered border lands into a more satisfactory condition, and to
effect this in A.D. 115 conquered Mesopotamia and made it a Roman
province. The following year he invaded Parthia, advanced to the
Tigris, occupied Adiabene in northern Mesopotamia and made it a
province under the name of Assyria, took Seleucia the chief Greek
colony on the Tigris and the Parthian capital Ctesiphon Close by, and
went on as far as the mouth of the Tigris, but was called back by the
news that Mesopotamia in his rear had revolted. That revolt he put
down, burning Seleucia and Edessa, but died on 8th August, 117. His
policy was reversed by his successor Hadrian, who gave back Mesopotamia
and Assyria and resumed the Euphrates frontier, whilst Armenia which
had also been annexed ceased to be a Roman province but remained a
vassal state.

As soon as Antonius Pius died in 161, the
Parthians invaded Armenia and placed an Arsacid prince on its throne,
then they invaded Syria and defeated the Roman army there. This forced
the Romans to act, and Verus, who was co-emperor with Marcus Aurelius,
went east to command the army in person in 162. Though the Parthians
stubbornly defended the Euphrates, the Romans at length broke through,
advanced into Mesopotamia, besieged Edessa and Dausara, and approached
Nisibis the frontier fortress, then took and destroyed the Parthian
capital Ctesiphon. But the victorious army brought back the plague with
it, and from that many perished. At the end of the campaign Rome
secured the western half of Mesopotamia, the prince of Edessa became a
Roman vassal, and the town of Harran was made free under Roman
protection.

In 194 Septimus Severus led a Roman army into
Mesopotamia, the whole of which he made a Roman province, as it had
been under Trajan: Nisibis was made the capital of this province, and
Edessa was allowed to continue as a vassal state. But in 198the
Parthians resumed hostilities and advanced into Mesopotamia, sweeping
all before them until they reached Nisibis to which they laid siege.
The Emperor Severus had started his return journey but this recalled
him: he rescued Nisibis and proceeded into Parthia where he took
Seleucia and Ctesiphon from which the Parthian king escaped with a few
horsemen, leaving the royal treasure for the Romans.

This defeat told severely on the Parthians and
brought about a revolt in 211, which ended in dethroning the
Arsacici dynasty and restoring a kingdom of Persia under the rule;of
the Sasanid family which claimed descent from the ancient Achaemenid
kings. In the east political movements most often have a religious
bearing, and this Sasanid revolution was associated with a revival and
reform of the Mazdean religion2. Anciently the
Persian kings had belonged to a priestly caste, and were regarded, as
endowed with a divine spirit, but the Parthian monarchs were not of
this privileged order. In the course of the first century of the
Christian era, it would appear, some of the Parthian rulers had tried
to lead a religious reformation, but their caste inferiority had
hindered their efforts. Since then religious observances had been
relaxed: the sacred fire had been allowed to go out (Moses of Chorene, Hist.Amen., ii, 94), the fire had been defiled by the fact that the
bodies of the dead had been burned contrary to Mazdean religious law
(Herodian, iv, 30), and the priestly caste of Magi had fallen into
disrepute (Agathias, ii, 26). No doubt the impression was that a
restoration of the old senii-divine monarchy would bring about a
revival of national greatness.

The Sasanid placed on the restored Persian
throne was Ardashir, and one of his first acts was to hold a general
council which dealt with internal divisions which had caused the
Mazdean religion to separate into several sects, and so to form an
established state church. On the one side the religious revival which
had been gathering force for some years was completed, and on the other
side the king undertook to restore the military prestige of the country
which had suffered so great an eclipse under the later Arsacids.

From 224 to 241, Ardashir was occupied in
putting down the adherents of the displaced Arsacid dynasty, but in the
course of that period, in 23o, he sent a challenge to Rome demanding of
the Emperor Severus that all the territory which had ever been in the
hands of Persia should be restored to him, Syria, Asia Minor, and
Egypt, and at the same time made preparations for the invasion of
Syria. This, of course, was a declaration of war. But Ardashir was
unable to proceed further immediately, as he had not yet effectually
reduced the proArsacid party, then in 241he died, leaving the
kingdom and the war to his son Shapur (241-272). The outbreak of war
was hastened by events in Armenia, where king Khusraw, a member of the
Arsacid family who had been placed on the Armenian throne by the
Romans, was assassinated by emissaries of Shapur. The Armenian nobles,
however, refused to support Shapur, and declared in favour of Khusraw's
younger son, Tiridates, who was a ward of Rome. Then Shapur occupied
Armenia and Tiridates fled to the Romans. From Armenia the Persians
overran Mesopotamia, Cappadocia, and Syria, where they took and
plundered Antioch, but were held up before Edessa. Then the Emperor
Gordian advanced against the Persians, defeated them, and drove them
back. This restored Romari rule as far as the Tigris, and Gordian
proceeding farther threatened the Persian capital Ctesiphon. But
Gordian was murdered in 244, and his successor Philip made a peace
which gave Armenia to Persia, Mesopotamia to Rome.

War broke out again in 258. At that time the
Roman Empire was under the Emperor Valerian and his son Gallienus.
Shapur repeated his former tactics of 241, and Valerian prepared to
invade Persia. He occupied Cappadocia, the Persians retiring before
him, but the plague played havoc with the Roman army, and delayed it
too long before entering Mesopotamia. Near Edessa some time in 259-26o,
the exact date cannot be determined, he met the Persians and was
totally defeated, both he and his army taken prisoners. He remained a
captive in the hands of the Persians until his death in 267. The
Persians then swept through Syria and captured and plundered the city
of Antioch. The only check they received was from a self-appointed
commander named Callistus, who sailed with ships from the harbours of
Cilicia and went to the relief of Pompeiopolis, which the Persians were
besieging, killed several thousand men, and took possession of Shapur's
harem. This caused the Persian king to turn back and hasten home,
paying to Edessa all the plunder he had taken from the Romans for
permission to pass unmolested through their territory. During this
retirement, the Persians were harassed and suffered heavy losses at the
hands of Odaenathus, King of Palmyra. After this, two leading Romans,
the Callistus who had relieved Pomeiopolis and Macrianus the army
paymaster, renounced allegiance to Valerian's son Gallienus, and
proclaimed Macrianus' two sons, Fulvius Macrianus and Fulvius Quietus,
as joint emperors (261). These two were.recognized in Egypt and
the east, with the exception of Palmyra, which remained loyal to
Gallienus. But Fulvius Macrianils went west, and fell in battle with
another pretender, whilst Fulvius Quietus was betrayed by Cantus and
put to death by Odaenathus. Thus unexpectedly Palmyra and its ruler
Odaenathus became dominant factors in the politics of the Near East.

As the captives were free to follow their own
religion they enjoyed greater religious freedom under Persian rule than
they were officially permitted at that time in the Roman Empire, for
those who were Christians were allowed to build and maintain churches,
whilst within the Roman jurisdiction Christianity was still liable to
persecution. At Yaranishahr, which was one of the camp cities assigned
the captives, they had two churches, in one the liturgy was celebrated
in Greek, in the other the Syriac language was used (Chron. de
Seert, ed. Scher, in P.O., iv, 220-1).

There is a tradition that the Bishop of
Antioch, Demetrianus, was one of the captives, and was asked by his
fellow-prisoners to act as their bishop, retaining the title of Bishop
of Antioch, but this he refused: then the Catholicus Papa made him
bishop of Jundi-Shapur and gave him the first place at the consecration
of a catholicus, which was the title given to the Bishop of Seleucia as
primate of the Persian Church. But this tradition is based on Mare's Liber
Turis (P- 7), a late work and one which "fourmille
d'invraisemblances et d'anachronismes"(Labourt, Le Christianisme
dans 1'em.pire Perse, 2o, note 1). The writer seems
to have supposed that the Bishop of Antioch (not yet called Patriarch)
was one of the dignitaries of the imperial court, which could hardly
have been the case under Valerian, and that the church at that early
date already was fully organized with patriarchs, archbishops, and
metropolitans, all a post-Nicene development.

After 260, Odaenathus assumed the title of
king, and occupied the position of an independent viceroy under the
more or less nominal suzerainty of Rome. In 264, he crossed the
Euphrates, relieved Edessa, and recaptured Nisibis and Harran (Carrhae)
from the Persians, then marched into Persia and attacked Ctesiphon. For
the time he was independent and important, only nominally under Roman
authority. But in 266-7 he was murdered, not as was suggested, at the
instigation of a jealous Roman government, but by a treacherous nephew
influenced by a private quarrel.

At Odaenathus' death the government of Palmyra
was assumed by his widow Zenobia, who thereby claimed to rule over
Egypt and Asia, though in fact her power was limited to Syria and
Arabia. She made an attempt to enforce her authority in Egypt, and in
face of a sturdy opposition, conquered the country, whilst in Asia she
extended her authority to Chalcedon in front of Constantinople.
Whatever profession of loyalty to Rome there might be, Palmyra had
become a rival and hostile power. In 270 Aurelian (270-75), an
energetic and capable prince, dislodged the Palmyrenes from Egypt and
went to Syria, thence advancing eastwards towards Palmyra. The
Palmyrenes were defeated with heavy loss on the banks of the Orontes
near Antioch, and again when they made a stand at Hemesa, then the
Romans marched across the desert to Palmyra itself. At this Zenobia
lost her nerve, and fled to seek refuge with the Persians, but was
overtaken and brought back a prisoner; whereupon Palmyra surrendered
(272). Next year it revolted, but Aurelian turned on it with unexpected
rapidity, took the city, and destroyed it. Thus Roman rule was restored
in Syria.

Meanwhile Shapur I of Persia had died (271),
and was succeeded by his son Hormuz 1, who had only a brief reign of
one year and ten days, and was followed by Bahrain I (272-273). In his
days appeared the heretic Mani, founder of the Manichaean sect, and the
king had him executed as an offender against the Mazdacan religion.
Either he was crucified at Jundi-Shapur, or his body was flayed after
death and the stuffed skin exposed on the gate of that city, in any
case there was a connection with Jundi-Shapur (at-Tabari, Ann. ii,
go; Scher, Chron. de Siert, P.O. iv, 228). In 273 Bahrain sent
help to Zenobia, but not sufficient to save her, and by this provoked
the enmity of Rome, but he was not prepared for war, and sent an
embassy to conciliate. The Emperor Aurelian (270-275), however, was
determined to enter on a war with Persia to wipe out the disgrace of
Valerian, and this was popular with the Roman people, but before action
was taken Aurelian was murdered (275).

Bahram I had been followed on the Persian
throne by two other kings of the same name, Bahram II (273-276) and
Bahram III (276-293). These were succeeded by Narsai (293-302).

After various vicissitudes in the Roman Empire,
Diocletian ascended the imperial throne in 284. In the course of his
reign, in 296, Narsai declared war against Rome under pretext of
enforcing his claim to Mesopotamia and Armenia. Diocletian sent his
colleague Galerius, and this time the Romans won a decisive victory,
and in 298 a satisfactory peace was concluded, by which the River
Aboras was recognized as the boundary between the two states, five
provinces beyond the Tigris were ceded to Rome, and the pro-Roman
prince Tiridates was confirmed as King of Armenia.

Constantine, who succeeded Diocletian in 3o6,
reigned until 327, and Shapur II (309-370), who had become king of
Persia, observing the many difficulties gathering around Rome, in 359
invaded Mesopotamia and besieged Amida, which he took after a long
siege. It was inevitable for Rome to interfere again, more especially
because repeated efforts had been made to capture the great frontier
fortress of Nisibis. In 362, the Emperor Julian, at the head of a large
army, invaded Persia, but this enterprise turned out ill; he himself
was slain, his army was defeated, and it was only with great difficulty
that his successor jovian rescued its remnants. After this disaster the
Romans were compelled to purchase peace on very unfavourable terms, and
the five provinces ceded to Rome in 298 had to be restored.

It was under Hormuz that Jundi-Shapur had
ceased to be a royal residence, and gradually became a heap of ruins.
Shapur II, his successor who repelled Julian's invasion, took many
prisoners in his war with the Romans, and "left the land of the Romans
bringing away with him captives whom he settled in the lands of 'Iraq,
al-Ahwaz, Persia, and the cities built by his father. He himself built
three cities, and called them after his own name. One of these was in
the land of Maisan, and was called Sod Sabur, now it is called Der
Mahraq. The second, in Persia, is still called Sabur. He rebuilt
Jundi-Shapur which had fallen into ruins, and called it Anti-Shapur
(Andochia Saporis)... the third town is on the banks of the Tigris, and
he called it Marw Haber, now called Akabora "(Scher, Hist.
Nestorienne (Chron. de Slert) in P.O. iV, 22i). Later writers such
as Abu 1-Farag, often refer to Shapur II as the founder of
Jundi-Shapur, but the more correct view seems to be that the city was
founded by Shapur 1, that it fell into decay when the court left the
vicinity in the days of Hormuz II, and that it was rebuilt by Shapur
II.

So far the diffusion of Hellenism was the work
of the Seleucids, then of the Romans. Now a new factor appears. In the
fourth century the eastward spread of Hellenism became the deliberate
task of the Christian Church, which at that time identified itself with
the Roman Empire. From this point the political history of Rome may be
laid aside and attention concentrated on the outspread of Christianity.

THE LEGACY OF GREECE

(1) ALEXANDIUAN SCIENCE

POLITICAL events had brought western Asia a
good deal under Greek influence. There had been some centuries
domination of the Seleucid kings of Syria and, though the later rulers
of that dynasty were inefficient and weak, the earlier ones had been
otherwise. Public business had been carried on in Greek, and all who
aspired to share in the administration had to learn and use Greek. No
doubt thisHellenization was superficial, we know that it was
so, but it left its impress. Then came Roman rule, which brought no new
culture but rather reinforced the already existing Greek influence.
Finally came the Christian Church, which was more definitely Greek in
its influence than either the Seleucid kings or the Roman State, and
after the time of Constantine the Roman government and the Christian
Church worked hand in hand.

But the Greek culture which was thus
introduced, was not that of Athens. Its focus was Alexandria in Egypt.
It was not Hellenic, but Hellenistic. No doubt the culture of
Alexandria evolved naturally and indeed inevitably from that of the
older Greece, but it took a rather different direction. Philosophy as
it was down to the age of Plato began to specialize in natural science
under the guidance of Aristotle, and ultimately concentrated itself in
medicine, astronomy, and mathematics. All these were treated as phases
of natural science, and philosophy dealt with the underlying realities
of which these specialized sciences were regarded as aspects. Its aim
was to get the key to the natural order which, it was believed formed
one great harmonious whole, and the means to be employed in the inquirywas outlined by the strict use of logic. This, of course, meant
that the methods used in science held good in theology also, and this
assumption caused the Church to be a missionary of Greek intellectual
culture as well as of the Christian religion.

The City of Alexandria had been founded by
Alexander the Great in 323 B.C.Its site was already occupied
by the Egyptian town of Rakote
(ñáêï“å) and this continued to be thename of the city in the Egyptian vernacular Coptic. When
Alexander's empire was divided amongst his generals, Egypt was secured
by Ptolemy Soter, and remained in the hands of the Ptolemaic dynasty
until it was taken over by the Romans. Ptolemy Soter made Alexandria
his capital, and did much to render it the focus of Greek culture and
scholarship. He founded there the Museum which before long became.a
kind of Hellenic university, a rival of the older schools of Athens.
Apparently there had been a kind of congregation of sages in the temple
of Heliopolis before this, and these sages removed to the new
foundation which thus became an heir of the wisdom of the Egyptians.
But the Egyptian element seems to have been absorbed in the Greek
atmosphere, so that Alexandria was the heir of Athens rather than of
Heliopolis. Still, the Greek world of Alexandria lost the exclusiveness
which had marked Atbenian thought. It took a cosmopolitan character and
showed a marked leaning towards oriental thought. In spite of its
professed exclusiveness, earlier Greek culture had not been quite free
from oriental influences, and much that appears in Greek life and
thought can be traced back to Egypt and Babylon. Again, it must be
noted that although Alexandria became so prominent in the development
of later Greek thought, such development was not confined to it; it was
not local, nor even national, but cosmopolitan. The Egyptians
themselves never reckoned Alexandria as a part of Egypt; to them it
always was a Greek colony, the headquarters of the alien race which
garrisoned and ruled Egypt.

The Museum was founded by Ptolemy Soter who
attached a library, but it was the generosity of his successor Ptolemy
Philadelphus (285-247 B.C.) which enriched this until it became the
greatest library of the ancient world, and this by itself went far to
make Alexandria a gathering place of the learned.

The new cosmopolitan Greek life which developed
after the days of Alexander had many sides. It produced its own class
of literature, and evolved a scientific literary criticism. It carried
forward philosophy, often on rather new lines. It produced new research
in medicine, astronomy, mathematics, and other branches of science. All
these were inter-related, for all show a kindred spirit, and all
evolved naturally from the culture of the older Greece. But, as a
matter of convenience, it will be well for us to concentrate our
attention on three leading branches, philosophy, medicine, astronomy,
and mathematics, these two last regarded as one because closely allied
and developed at the hands of the same persons.

Aristotle the philosopher had been Alexander's
tutor, but his life was more connected with Athens than with
Alexandria. Yet his influence permeated Greek thought, and was mainly
responsible for directing it towards natural science and mathematics,
though this scientific tendency had a precedent in earlier philosophy.

The latest type of Greek philosophy, and one
which had very great influence on Greek thought when it came into
contact with the Arabs, was that known as neo-Platonism. This school of
philosophy was fond of tracing its beginnings back to the
senii-legendary Pythagoras (580-500 B.C.?),a native of Samos
or of Tyre who, if not the pupil of Thales, at least visited him and
was influenced by him. Thales is said to have studied mathematics and
physical science in Egypt, and Pythagoras is described as following in
his footsteps and going to Egypt and receiving instruction there from
the priests. Amongst other things he learned from these priests the
doctrine of transmigration (cf. Herdt. ii, 123)- On returning home he
found that Samos was under the tyrant Polycrates, and thereupon
rmgrated to Magna Graccia, ultimately settling at Croton. There he
established a school in the form of a confraternity, following Egyptian
precedent. This fraternity possessed all its goods in common, and kept
all its teaching secret from the outside world, which caused it to be
regarded with suspicion, as a secret society with potential subversive
political tendency. So the fraternity experienced rough treatment and
Pythagoras escaped to Tarentum, then to Metapontum. The community was
broken up, but continued as a philosophical group for some two
centuries, though no longer preserving secrecy about its tenets. The
rule of secrecy was first broken by Philolaus (circ- 400 B.C.), in fact
such secrecy was altogether alien to Greek thought. After the fourth
century B.C., when Philolaus disclosed its esoteric doctrine, thePythagorean
school declined in prominence. Pythagorean schools or clubs in Magna
Graecia had assumed a political character, strongly antidemocratic in
their tone, and at some period in the course of the fourth century
there was a rising against them during which the cities of Magna
Graccia became a scene of murder, armed rebellion, and disorder of
every kind (Polybius, ii, 39; Strabo, viii, 7, 1; Justin, xx,
4)- Plato shows tendencies towards Orphic and Pythagorean ideas,
especially in the later treatises. Tle Old Academy was more Pythagorean
than Plato, but the New Academy turned in a different direction.
Whether the doctrine of the immortality of the soul came from Egypt
through a Pythagorean medium is not clear, but most of the Greeks who
accepted that doctrine were in touch with Pythagoreanism.

About 100 B.C. there was a revival of
Pythagoreanism and a number of pseudonymous treatises appeared
purporting to describe Pythagoras' teachings, including a set of
poetical maxims which were called "the Golden Verses of Pythagoras It
does not seem that the Pythagorean school ever took root in Rome. In
this maturer Pythagorean teaching the soul was regarded as consisting
of three parts, nous, thumos, and phrenes, only the first of
these immortal. All nature was regarded as being alive, animated by
heat, and the sun and stars as centres of heat were esteemed to be
gods. The movements of the heavenly bodies are harmoniously adjusted by
number, an idea of Egyptian origin, and so certain numbers have a
sacred character, e.g. io which represents the sum of a
pyramid of four stages, 4ù3ù2--1=10. This consideration
of numbers appears again in Philo and later philosophers. All these
ideas recur again in the later neo-Platonic philosophers, whose
influence was felt by the Arabs. From the beginning Pythagorean
teaching was much concerned with mathematics, its geometry chiefly
interested in measuring areas. The Athenian Sophists turned to the
geometry of the circle which the Pythagoreans had neglected. This
revived Pythagoreanism exercised great influence in later Athens, and
apparently in Alexandria as well. Neo-Platonists knew Pythagorean
teaching in this later form. Both Porphyry and lamblichus, leading
neo-Platonists, wrote lives of Pythagoras. In itself neo-Platonism was
a perfectly natural and logical development of Greek thought, not an
oriental intruder. It was eclectic, but so were most of the later
philosophies, and combined the systems of Plato, Aristotle, and the
Stoics under the mgis of Pythagoras. It received its clear definition
in the teaching of Plotinus and his disciples.

The Neo-Pythagorean philosopher Numenius of
Apamea (circ. 160-180 B.C.), whose teaching is known by citations in
Busebius (Praep. Evang., xi, 10; xviii, 22; xv, I 7),
and a few other references (e.g. Porphyry in Stob., Eccl. i,
836) must be regarded as a precursor of neo-Platonism. He was the first
Greek philosopher to show any sympathy with Hebrew religion, describing
Plato as Moses speaking in Attic (Clement Alex., Strom. i,
342; Eusebius, Praep. Evang. xi, 10). He shows very
plainly a tendency to religious syncretism such as is strongly marked
in the neo-Platonists, but is not confined to them, indeed it seems to
have been widely prevalent in the second century and after.

The neo-Platonic school had its parent in Ammonius
Saccas orSaccophorus, so named because he had been a
carrier in his youth. Very little is known of his life. The chief
source of information is Porphyry cited by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 6,
I9, 7), who states that he was a native of Alexandria and a Christian
educated by his parents in the faith, but when he began to study
philosophy he changed his opinions and became a pagan, though this last
statement Eusebius denies (ib. 6, 16, 9).It has been suggested
that Eusebius confuses him with another Ammonius, his contemporary and
also an Alexandrian who was the editor of a Diatessaron giving the
gospel according to St. Matthew with parallel passages from the other
gospels, the basis of what afterwards were known as the Ammonian
sections. Hieronymus (de vir. must. 55) says, "de consonantia
Moysi et lesu opus elegans et evangelicos canones excogitabit".
Apparently there were two contemporary persons, both of Alexandria and
both called Ammonius. According to Longinus and Porphyry our Ammonius
refrained from writing any books, following the precedent of
Pythagoras, but the other Ammonius was the author of several works.
Amongst the pupils of Ammonius were Origen, Plotinus, Herennius,
Longinus the critic, Heracles, Olympius, and Antoriius, but these may
not all have been pupils of the same Ammonius. Porphyry says that his
teaching was kept secret, also a Pythagorean idea, that he bound his
pupils by oath not to disclose it, but that vow was broken first by
Herennius, then by Origen. There were two Origens, one the well-known
Christian writer, the other a pagan philosopher, both
Alexandrians and contemporary, but the Christian Origen and Heracles
may have been the pupils of the other Ammonius who composed the
Diatessaron. As to Ammonius' teaching, Hierocles (apud Photius) says
that he endeavoured to reconcile Plato and Aristotle, but that was the
aim of all the later Alexandrians. Nemesius, a bishop and neoPlatonist
of the later fourth century, gives two citations, one from both
Numenius and Ammonius, the other from Ammonius alone, both about the
nature of the soul and its relation to the body. If it be true that
Ammonius did not leave any writings, these references can only
represent traditions about his teaching. The association with Numenius
is significant.

Plotinus was an Egyptian, a native of
Lycopolis or Siut, now known as Assiout, where he was born about A.D.
200 (Eunatius, Vit. Soph. P. 6; Suidas, sub voc., puts
his birth at Nicopolis). He attended the school of Alexandria, but was
dissatisfied with the teaching he heard there, until a friend took him
to hear Ammonius Saccas. On hearing his lecture, Plotinus decided that
he had found the right teacher. He was then in his twentyeighth year,
and remained with Ammonius eleven years. Undoubtedly the meeting with
Ammonius was a turning-point in Plotinus' life and gave the clue to his
doctrine. But Arnmonius wrote no books, nor did he make any effort to
publish his teaching, preferring to instruct in private and u;ider a
pledge of secrecy. One result of Ammonius' teaching was to make
Plotinus anxious to obtain more accurate information about the beliefs
of the Indians and Persians. Reverence for, and interest in, oriental
thought was characteristic of the Alexandrian school and this was
inherited by the neo-Platonists. In order to gratify this desire
Plotinus joined the Emperor Gordian's expedition to Persia in 242, an
expedition which turned out ill and resulted in the emperor's death,
and Plotinus had difficulty in reaching Antioch in safety. He then went
to Rome, being at the time forty years of age, and there lectured for
ten years and had many hearers, some of them senators and other leading
citizens. But for long he followed Ammonius' example and taught
privately, writing and publishing nothing. Then in 254, he began to
write, and in 263 Porphyry became one of his hearers, introduced by
Ametius who had been his hearer for twenty-four years, and remained
with him six years. Plotinus had written twenty-one books of his Enneads
when Porphyry met him, during the six years they were together he
wrote twenty-four more, which Porphyry considered his best work, and in
the brief remainderofhislifehewroteninemore. He died in 269, having
completed his 69th year. His death took place during a visitation of
plague, but was not due to the pestilence. Apparendy he became ill
because he was deprived of the ministrations of his personal attendants
who had been carried off by the plague. Finding himself ill, he retired
to Campania to a house bequeathed to him by the Arab physician Zethus,
who had been one of his pupils, and there finished his life in peace.

Later neo-Platonists often associated
themselves with the revival of paganism then in progress, as did his
pupil Amelius, but Plotinus himself stood aloof. The Enneads have
come down to us rearranged and revised by his pupil Porphyry who,
however, outlines another arrangement disposing the books in
chronological order, and by that arrangement the development of
Plotinus' thought is made clearer.

Though Plotinus was educated at Alexandria, his
teaching was developed and delivered in Rome. At one time neo-Platonism
was regarded as essentially Alexandrian, but this is an overstatement,
if not altogether untrue, though the system contains elements which
appear also in the Alexandrian Jew Philo, in the Gnostics who seem to
have been of Egyptian origin, and in the Alexandrian Christians Clement
and Origen. It was indeed eclectic, though claiming to be Platonism. It
had a religious syncretism akin to that which appears in Plutarch and
Maximus of Tyre, and which seems to have been very widely prevalent at
the time.

In Plotinus' teaching the Monad is presented as
the Supreme God, the ultimate source of all good and order. God is
immanent, but is also transcendent. Between God and the world is the
World Soul, the creator whose work is not altogether good and orderly,
whilst the phenomenal world itself is unsubstantial and unstable. It is
very much like the Gnostic attitude towards the problem of evil: the
Creator whose work is obviously imperfect, is a subordinate, not the
Supreme God, and therefore not perfect. Knowledge may be obtained by
sense-perception, by inference from sense-perception,but the
highest and best knowledge is that receive directly by inspiration.

Neo-Platonism, substantially the doctrine of
Plotinus' Enneads, though developed by his successors,
exercised a powerful influence over the Graeco-Roman world for several
centuries. Books IV-VI of the Enneads, in an abridged Syriac
translation, circulated amongst Syriac-speaking Christians, especially
the Monophysites, as the "Theology of Aristotle "and were accepted as
genuinely Aristotelian by the earlier scholars of Baghdad, before the
time of al-Kindi, and were still so accepted by many for long
afterwards. It is easy to see how such material contributed to a
pantheistic and mystical tone of thought such as is apparent in Muslim
philosophy.

Porphyy (b. 233, died after 301) was a
Syrian, his original name Malchus meaning "king" or "royal", which he
changed at the advice of his teachers to Basileus, then to Porphyry. He
studied at Athens under Longinus, Ammonius' disciple, then at Rome in
263 under Plotinus. After a visit to Sicily he returned to Rome and
gave expository lectures on the philosophy of Plotinus. He married
Marcella, a friend's widow, simply for the sake of educating her
children. At the time there were many sects which produced spurious
apocalyptic works which they attributed to various distinguished
authorities of ancient times, and with some of these Porphyry was led
into controversy, especially against a book published under the name of
"Zosimus" and purporting to give an account of the religious tenets of
the Persians. This work he showed to be a recent forgery, and in doing
so applied sound principles of criticism. The inquiry led him into
controversy With the Christians, and for several centuries his writings
were viewed by the Christians as the most serious attack made upon
their faith. Only fragments of his work in this direction are preserved
by Christian apologetical writers, but it is clear that his method of
treatment was by way of historical criticism as already developed in
the school of Alexandria. In one treatise, De antro nympharum, he
applied the method of allegorical interpretation to the story of
Ulysses' visit to the cave of the nymphs in Homer, Odyss. 13,
I 08-1 I2As a writer, Porphyry was distinguished by a clear insight
into the meaning of the literary work he examined, and had an
exceptionally lucid manner of stating that meaning. His Isagoge or
introduction to the Categories of Aristotle was used for many centuries
in east and west as the clearest and most practical manual Of
Aristotelian logic, indeed that logic was to a great extent popularized
by the excellence of its presentation in the Isagoge. His
"Sententiae"represent his exposition of Plotinus, again lucidly
expressed but much preoccupied with his ethical teaching. He wrote a
history of philosophy, of which his extant Life of PYthagoras no
doubt formed a part. Like many neo-Platonists he was a vegetarian and
ascete, which accorded with the tradition inherited from Pythagoras, as
appears in the life of Apolloniu. s of Tyana, a religious and mor-al
reformer of the first century. One of his treatises, De
abstinentia, deals with this ascetic ideal. He does not recommend
abstinence from flesh for all, admitting that it is unsuitable for
soldiers and athletes, but commends it to those who are occupied with
philosophy: he disapproves the offering of animal victims in sacrifice,
which he regards as a barbarous survival of the days when men had false
ideas about the gods and as akin to human sacrifices which were
obsolete since the days of Hadrian, animal sacrifices being in many
cases a commutation of older human sacrifices. Animals have some
measure of reason, and so have certain rights, they do not exist solely
for the service of men. Abstinence from flesh food was practised by the
Essenes, by the Egyptian priests, and by the Indian Sarmanoi, by which
he denotes Buddhist priests about whom he obtained information from the
Syrian Bar Daisan who had contact with an Indian embassy proceeding to
Rome (Porphyry, De abstinentia, 4, i8). He repudiates the
doctrine of transmigration of souls which to many people had nade
Pythagoreanism ridiculous. He was the author also of several works on
psychology and mathematics.

lamblichus (d. circ. 320), a native of
Cocle-Syria, was Porphyry's pupil in Rome and succeeded him as leader
of the neo-Platonists. He was credited with supernatural powers, and it
was said that at his devotions he was raised in the air and
transfigured. His pupils asked him if this were true, and he laughed,
and said that there was no truth in it Whatever, As a writer he was
inferior to Porphyry, with defects in style and often obscure, but the
Emperor Julian considered him the equal Of Plato, "a thinker who is
inferior to him in time, but not in genius, I refer to Iamblichus of
Chalcis" (julian, Oral. 4, "On the Sun King," 146 A), and for some
time, it appears, he had a great vogue. He wrote a treatise tracing
philosophy back to Pythagoras, and of this some portions survive,
including a life of Pythagoras. His Logos Proireptikos is an
exhortation to philosophy which consists largely of extracts from
Plato, Aristotle, and neo-Platoriic writers. Besides these works he
composed three mathematical treatises.

At the death of Iamblichus in 33o, his school
dispersed, but he had a successor in Aedisius at Pergamum in
Mysia, who educated the sons of Eustathius, a noble Roman who was sent
on an embassy to the Persian court. By that time the Roman Empire was
professedly Christian, and the philosophers who adhered to paganism had
to keep their religious sympathies secret. Amongst Aedisius' pupils was
the Emperor Julian, who made an attempt to revive decaying paganism,
but without permanent result. The great hope of the pagan party lay in
the neo-Platonists. At the beginning of the fifth century Hypathia (d.
415) expounded neo-Platonic doctrines at Alexandria, but for the most
part Alexandrian thought was not much attached to neo-Platonism. The
same teaching was continued after her by Hierocles (circ. 415-450), a
pupil of Plutarch of Athens (d. 481),who seems to have been
responsible for introducing neo-Platonism into Athens which from his
time forward became its home. Plutarch was succeeded at Athens by
Syrianus of Alexandria. After him came Proclus (410-485) a native of
Constantinople who received his education at Alexandria, then continued
at Athens under Plutarch and Syrianus. He was the author of a treatise
on "Platonic Theology "and of one called "Theological Elements ", which
contains a statement of the doctrine of Plotinus modified in a form
which supplied the philosophical ideas of the later neo-Platonists, so
that he ranks next after Plotinus as an authority of their system. At
that time the school of Athens, the home of neo-Platonism, was secretly
pagan and conscious of the precarious character of the tolerance which
it enjoyed. One of his pupils was Marinus, who wrote his biography.

The last head of the academy of Athens was Damascius
a native of Damascus as his name denotes, but educated at Alexandria,
then at Athens. He professed to accept the Aristotelian doctrine of the
eternity of matter, in contradiction to the accepted Christian tenet of
creation, and for this was viewed disapprovingly by the Emperor
Justinian. But this was merely the climax of a growing antagonism of
the imperial authorities for what was generally felt to be a nursery of
paganism. Justinian's ideal was a centralized and united empire, in
complete conformity with the ruling prince in religion and in
everything else. Official disapproval led to a species of persecution
of all philosophers in 528, and in the following year the school of
Athens was closed and its endowments confiscated. Of the deprived
professors seven, including Damascius, migrated to Persia and were
welcomed by Khusraw, who was an ardent admirer of Greek philosophy and
science. This migration seems to have taken place in 532. The seven
philosophers expected to find an ideal state under the rule of a
philosopher king, but were quickly disillusioned and discovered that an
oriental tyranny could be worse than the severity of Justinian, and
begged to be allowed to go back. Khusraw tried to induce them to
remain, but used no compulsion, and -when they did return took care to
insert a clause in the treaty made with Justinian securing them
complete liberty of conscience and freedom from molestation when under
Roman rule. This return took place in 533.

Although the school of Athens was closed the
philosophers who had been trained there continued to teach and both
they and their pupils produced written works. Chief amongst these late
neo-Platonists were Ammonius and John Philoponus. Ammonius was
a pupil of ProcIus and compiled a commentary on the Isagoge of
Porphyry which became the standard Greek authority and was afterwards
adopted by the Nestorians. John Philoponus (circ- 530), a pupil of
Ammonius, was a later commentator on the Isagoge and his
exposition was preferred by the Monophysites.

The fame of Euclid (before 300 B.C.),one of the earliest scholars of Alexandria, did much to make the
Museum a home of mathematical studies. His leading work, the Elenzents,
probably contains a good deal which is not original, but is of great
value as a summary of the knowledge of geometry acquired by the Greeks
from the time of Pythagoras to his own days, arranged systematically
and in logical sequence, a model method of statement, though more
rigorous than is usual withmodern r4athematicians. Other works
are attributed to him, some doubtful. Amongst them was a treatise on
optics, probably apocryphal, which was used by the Arabs.

Aristarchus (d. circ. 230 B.C.),of
Samos, the astronomer, was a teacher at Alexandria. He was the first to
show how to find by means of the Pythagorean triangle the relative
distances of sun and moon from the earth, though his result is not even
approximately correct owing to the defective character of the
instruments used. He also made the conjecture that the sun, not the
earth, is the centre of the universe, a theory confirmed by Copernicus
in the sixteenth century A.D. In this he does not seem to have had many
followers, but his suggestion was not altogether forgotten and is
mentioned by al-Biruni (C. A.D. 1000), who, however, did not adopt it.

Eratosthenes (d. circ. I94 B.C.) was a
distinguished scholar of Alexandria and the leading geographer of
antiquity. He devised a method of measuring the circumference and
diameter of the earth, which was afterwards put into practice by the
khalif al-Ma'mun in 829 and repeated a few years later. To do this he
noted that at noon at Syene (Assouan) the sun was directly in the
zenith, but at the same time in Alexandria it was 7° 12' south of
the zenith, and from this concluded that Alexandria was 70 12' north of
Syene on the earth's surface. Knowing that the distance between the two
places was 5,000 stadia, and as 7° 12'is one-fiftieth of
the full circle Of 360° he calculated that the earth's
circumference must be 50 by 5,000 stadia, i.e. 250,000 stadia, but
altered that to 252,000 stadia so as to have 700 stadia exactly to a
degree, thence computing its diameter to be equivalent to 7,850 miles
of our measurement, and this is correct within fifty miles. He further
stated that the distance between the tropics is eleven eighty-thirds of
the circumference, making the obliquity of the ecliptic 23° 51'
20".

Archimedes (d. 212 B.C.), the friend of
Eratosthenes, was not directly connected with Alexandria but his work,
especially in mechanics, was known to and used by the Arabs.

Apollonius (circ. 225 B.C.), of
Perga,was educated at Alexandria and applied himself to conic sections
in which he used the names ellipse, parabola, and hyperbola. The work
in which he dealt with this was in eight books, the first four of which
are extant in Greek, the next three. in an Arabic translation, and the
last book is lost. The first four books, like Euclid's Elements, are
a digest of material already known arranged in systematic order, books
V to VII contain a good deal of new material due to his own research.
He also composed other works on geometry.

Nicomedes (circ. 180B.C.) was
a writer of minor importance who is best known as the inventor of the
conchoid curve by means of which an angle can be trisected.

Diocles (circ. 180B.C.)
invented the cissoid or "ivy shaped curve which enables a cube to be
duplicated, and studied the problem proposed by Archimedes of bisecting
a sphere by a plane so that the volumes of the segments may be in a
given ratio.

Hypsicles (circ. 180 B.C.), of
Alexandria, may have been the author of what is known as the fourteenth
book of Euclid, containing seven propositions on regular polyhedra. He
also investigated polygonal numbers and certain indeterminate
equations. In astronomy he introduced the division of the circle into
36o degrees and their subsequent sexagesimal divisions, though this he
adopted from work already done by the Babylonian astronomers. The work
of Hypsicles was translated into Arabic by Qusta b. Luqa, and
afterwards revised by al-Kindi.

Hipparchus (d. circ. 125 B.C.) was not
directly connected with Alexandria, but worked chiefly at Rhodes. He
was the founder of scientific astronomy, which necessitated the
measurement of angles and distances on a sphere, and in doing this he
laid the foundations of spherical trigonometry. He worked out a table
of chords, double sines of half the angle which was in use until the
Indian system of calculating by sines was introduced by the Arabs.
Plane trigonometry did not appear until later. He also made a catalogue
of 850 fixed stars which marks the beginning of astronomy proper.

Heron (circ. A.D. 50), of Alexandria,
was the inventor of several machines and wrote on dioptrics, mechanics,
and pneumatics. Much of his mathematical work was concerned with the
mensuration of land. He gives a formula for the sides of a triangle
which may be represented as

A = v(s(s - a)(s - b)(s - c))

where s = a + b + c.

In his geometry appears the rule which we
express as--

c = (n/4) cot(180°/11)

where n = number of sides of a polygon of area
A and side s, and where c=A/s2

He was able to solve the equations which we
represent as

ax2 + bx = c

Heron was translated into Arabic by Qusta b.
Luqa (mechanics).

Menelaus (circ. A.D. 100) wrote on the
sphere and spherical triangles, also six books on calculating chords.
He states the theorem that if the three sides of a triangle are cut by
a transversal, the product of the lengths of three segments which have
no common extremity is equal to the products of the other three.
Menelaus was not directly connected with Alexandria, but is known to
have taken astronomical observations in Rome.

Nicomachus (circ. A.D. 100) also had no
direct connection with Alexandria. He wrote a treatise on music and two
books on arithmetic, possibly a compendium of a larger work now lost.

Marinus (circ. 100 A.S.),of
Tyre, was a geographer who improved on the methods of Hipparchus. He
located places by the use of two co-ordinates, latitude and longitude,
but his work has not come down to us, most of it no doubt incorporated
in that of Ptolemy.

Claudius Ptolemy (circ. A.D.
140-160) taught both in Athens and
Alexandria. His chief work was known as the
Ìáèçìá“éêçò
óìõ“Üîåùò
âéâëéïí
ðñù“ïí. He wrote another
ó²í“áîéò and therefore
the Arabs called the principal treatise ç
ìåãéó“ç and placing the Arabic
article before the name made it almajest. He gives a
summary of all earlier work on the size of the earth and the exact
position of certain places. He further developed Hipparchus' table of
chords and extended the use of sexagesimal fractions. His work in
astronomy has been justly compared with that of Euclid in geometry, it
gave an ordered and logical summary of all that had been done so far.
He increased Hipparchus' catalogue Of 850 fixed stars to 1,022.In
astronomy he took the earth as the centre of the universe and planned a
complicated system of cycles, eccentrics, and epicycles to account for
the movements of the heavenly bodies. This system apparently held good
to a certain point, then it was detected to be unsatisfactory by Arab
astronomers and efforts were made to correct it, the best known being
that of the "new astronomy "which arose in Andalus (Arab Spain) in the
eleventh century, but no correction produced a completely satisfactory
result until the whole was completely replanned after Copernicus proved
that the sun is the centre of our system and that the earth and other
planets revolve around it. He was also the author of a work on
astrology, the Tetrabiblos, which had a good deal of influence
over Arab thought. A good deal of his work was translated into Arabic
by Yusuf al-Haijaj, the Teirabiblos by Abu Yahya al-Batriq,
whilst his geography formed the basis of al-Khwariznii's Book of
the Image of the Earth which reproduced his maps in a modified
form.

Diophantus (circ. A.D. 250), of
Alexandria, was the author of an arithmetic in thirteen books of which
six survive, a treatise on polygon numbers of which part is extant, and
a collection of propositions which he called porisms. The first of
these deals with the theory of numbers and includes an algebraical
treatment of arithmetical problems. In solving determinate equations he
recognized only one root, even when both roots are positive. He treats
also some indeterminate equations and certain cases of simultaneous
equations. He did not exactly invent algebra, but prepared the way for
it by a treatment of arithmetic which anticipated algebra. His work
influenced both Indian and Arab mathematicians, but neither followed
him with sufficient confidence to make full use of the path he opened.
It was not until the rediscovery of his work in sixteenth century
Europe that full advantage was taken of his methods and so a foundation
was laid of modern algebra.

Pappus (circ. 300), of Alexandria,
wrote eight "books of mathematical collections", of which the first two
are lost, but the remaining six are extant. Of these six, Book III
deals with proportion, inscribed solids, and duplication of the cube;
Book IV, spirals and other plane curves; Book V, maximum and
isoperimetric figures; Book VI, the sphere Book VII, analysis; and Book
VIII, mechanics.

Hypatia (d. 4I5), of Alexandria,
daughter of the mathematician Theon, is said to have written a
commentary on an astronomical table of Diophantus, possibly not the
distinguished mathematician already mentioned, and on the conics of
Apollonius, but neither of these survive.

Proclus (d- 485) studied at Alexandria
and taught at Athens. He wrote many books, including a paraphrase of
portions of Ptolemy, a work on astrology, another on astronomy, and a
commentary on the first book of Euclid's Elements.

The history of Greek medicine proper begins
with Hippocrates, of Cos, who died in 257 B.C., and his "Aphorisms
"always remained a leading text-book for practitioners. This collection
of aphorisms was amongst the early medical works translated into Arabic
by Hunayn ibn Ishaq, who was able to use the Greek text. There is an
anonymous Syriac translation which has been published by Pognon
(Leipzig, 1903), but its date does not appear.

In the later period of the school of Alexandria
the medical works of Galen (d. A.D. 200) were established as the
recognized authority, and a selection of his treatises formed the
official curriculum for medical study. This curriculum was reproduced
at Emesa and Jundi-Shapur and Syriac versions were prepared for the use
of Syriac-speaking students, Many of those Syriac translations were
made by Sergius of Rashayn, but were afterwards revised by Hunayn ibn
Ishaq and his companions in the Dar al-Hikhma at Baghdad, or were
supplanted by new versions prepared at that academy. This translation
into Syriac preceded the preparation of Arabic versions, but went on
for some time side by side with translation into Arabic. Galen himself
had practised at Rome, but his studies were made at Smyrna, Corinth,
and Alexandria.

The chief Greek medical writers after Galen
were:-

Oribasius (born circ. 325) was
a friend of the Emperor Julian and the person whom Julian selected to
be the confidant of his dissatisfaction with Christianity and
determination to revert to paganism. This letter (Julian, Epist., xvii)
was probably written in 358. He was with Julian in Gaul and accompanied
that prince's unfortunate expedition into Persia where he was present
at his death in 363. After his return from Persia his property was
confiscated by Valentinian and Valens, though the reason -for this is
not clear. He was then banished to a land of barbarians ", but this
could not have been for long as he returned in 369. Three of his
medical works are extant, one of these was a Synopsis dedicated
to his son Eustathius in nine books, and this was translated into
Arabic by Hunayn ibn lihaq and was known to 'Ali 'Abbas. It is quoted
by Paul of Aegina.

Aetius (end of the fifth century) was a
physician who practised at Constantinople. Nothing is known of his
life, even the date of his activity is unknown, but he is supposed to
have lived in the later fifth century as he refers to Cyril of
Alexandria, who died in A.D. 444 and to Petrus Archiater who was
physician to Theodoric, King of the East Goths. He was a Syrian of
Amida. He was the author of a medical compendium in sixteen books, now
divided into four groups. His work does not contain much original
matter, but its contents are well chosen. He was the first Greek
physician to give serious attention to spells and incantations.

Paul of Aegina, probably of the late
seventh century. Nothing is known of his life. Suidas says that he was
the author of several medical works. Of such works one only is extant
and is known as The Seven Books on Medicine. This was
translated by Hunayn ibn Ishaq and was in great repute amongst the
Arabs, especially as an authority on obstetrics, for which reason he
was surnamed al-qawabil "the accoucheur by them.

Aaron, priest and physician, of
Alexandria, is another about whose life no information is available. He
was the author of a Pandects or Syntagma, which is said to
have been translated into Syriac by a certain Gosius. This Gosius has
been identified with Gesius Petaeus who lived in the days of the
Emperor Zeno (474-491). The late Syriac writer Bar Hebraeus states that
Aaron composed thirty books which were translated by Sergius, of
Rashayn, who added another two books, but Steinschneider holds that
these additional books were the work of the translator who made the
Arabic version, a Persian Jew named Mesirgoyah. Aaron's works
circulated amongst the Arabs and had a considerable influence on Arab
medicine.

CHRISTIANITY AS A HELLENIZING
FORCE

(1) HELLENISTIC ATMOSPHERE OF
CHRISTIANITY

THE Christian Church in its earlier period was
essentially a Hellenizing force. Its language was Greek and its first
outspread was amongst those who were Greek in speech and culture, if
not in race. Even in Rome itself it used Greek, as appears from the
fact that the early Christian Roman writers, Clement, Hermas,
Hippolytus, and others wrote in Greek. Greek is the language generally
used in the earlier catacomb inscriptions, and seems to have been that
employed in the primitive Roman liturgy, though the Greek phrases now
surviving in that liturgy were added later, probably in the fifth
century, the Kyrie eleison introduced by St. Gregory at a
still later date (John the Deacon, Vita S. Gregorii, ii. 2o, P.L.
lxxv, 94). This prevailed until well into the fourth century when
Constantine removed the imperial government to New Rome
(Constantinople). The churches of Gaul also were Greek-speaking, though
not to so late a period, and the province of Africa, afterwards the
home of Latin Christianity, seems to have had a primitive Greek phase,
if Aub6 is right in regarding the Greek text of the Acts of the Martyrs
of Scillite discovered by Uesener in i88i as the original (Aub6, Etude
sur un nouveau texts des acres des Martyrs Scillitains, Paris,
i88i): Greek seems to have been largely used in second century
Carthage. All this shows that Christianity spread first through the
urban commercial population round the Mediterranean whose lingua franca
was Greek. It was only later that it penetrated into the hinterland and
reached the vernacular-speaking populations of Egypt, Syria, Italy,
Gaul, and Africa. Greek was an international language and Christianity
appeared as an international religion.

It is of course true that Christianity claimed
a Jewish origin, for "salvation is of the Jews" (St. John iv, 22), but
it developed in an atmosphere of Hellenistic Judaism, such as produced
Philo of Alexandria, who used his Old Testament in Greek, not in
Hebrew.

The Diaspora or Dispersion of the Jews began
after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 588 B.C., when
many of them found a refuge in Egypt. The Babylonians were conquered by
the Persians under Cyrus in 538, and Cyrus permitted the rebuilding of
Jerusalem and the restoration of its temple. But many of the Jews who
had migrated to other lands did not want to go back to Palestine,
finding much better openings elsewhere, and this was especially the
case with those who had gone to Egypt, where they had formed several
populous and flourishing colonies. When Alexander founded Alexandria in
332 he invited Jews to his new city and assigned them one out of the
three regions into which it divided (Josephus, c. Apionem, 2
-4; Bell. 7ud. 2.18-7). These Egyptian Jews, however, formed an
integral part of the Jewish community, recognized the jurisdiction of
the High Priests, and paid regular tribute to the temple at Jerusalem.
Although under the rule of the Seleucid monarchs of Syria, they
retained their own laws and religion without interference to the reign
of Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.), who began trying to Hellenize
them and to introduce the worship of Greek deities in Jerusalem. This
resulted in a revolt led by the Maccabees which Antiochus was unable to
put down. At the beginning of his reign Antiochus deposed the High
Priest Onias III and put his brother Jason in his place, then
substituted a younger brother Menelaus or Oriias IV, who procured the
murder of Onias III. Onias V, the son of the murdered ex-High Priest,
fled to Egypt to escape the sacrilege and disorder produced by
Antiochus' policy and with him went some adherents who esteemed him to
be the legitimate High Priest. They were well received by Ptolemy
Philometor (181-146 B.C.), who gave them a disused Egyptian temple at
Leontopolis, and there they constructed a replica of the temple at
Jerusalem and duly observed the daily sacrifices and other rites. This
temple at Leontopolis remained in use until the temple at Jerusalem was
destroyed in A.D. 70, and then it was closed. Although a sanctuary of
the Egyptian Jews this local temple never attained the prestige of the
temple at Jerusalem, to which tribute)was sent from Egypt as from other
countries of the dispersion. Probably it was in connection with this
temple that a Greek translation of the Old Testament, known as the
Septuagint, was made, apparently by gradual stages, the translation of
the five books of Moses in a rather crude vernacular such as was used
in Egypt and which has its parallel in many of the Egyptian papyri, and
this translation was made early enough to be used by Demetrius (as
cited in Clemens Alex., Stom., i, 21, and Eusebius, Praep.
Evang., ix, 21, 29), who probably lived under Ptolemy
Philopator (222-205), whilst the historical and prophetical books were
translated later in more literary form, and the latest books,
Ecclesiastes and Song, in an improved and more literal style. The
legend of Seventy Elders who made the translation under Ptolemy
Philadelphus (285-247 B.c.), based on the spurious letter of Atisteas
to his brother Philocrates, is unhistorical. Probably the whole
translation was not completed before the early years of the Christian
era. Philo of Alexandria does not quote from Ruth, Ecclesiastes, Song,
Esther, Lamentations, Ezekiel, or Daniel, nor does the New Testament
quote from Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song, or certain of
the Minor Prophets.

Beginning with the revolt of the Maccabees
there was a strong anti-Hellenist reaction in Palestine which seems to
have spread abroad amongst the Jews of the Dispersion in the early
years of the Christian era. It was part of the nationalist movement
which inspired the Jewish revolt that culminated in the destruction of
Jerusalem. This reaction returned to stricter observance of Hebrew
tradition, to the use of the Hebrew language, and to the older idea of
complete separation from the "gentiles". This reaction was the parent
of Rabbinical Judaism. In this stricter Judaism it was no longer
tolerated to read the scriptures publicly in the synagogue in the Greek
language, the observance of the rite of circumcision and all other
legal ordinances was punctiliously enforced and any familiar
intercourse with pagans or the "uncircumcised" was absolutely
forbidden. The Mosaic law was made stricter by rabbinical glosses.

The rivalry between this stricter traditional
party and the Taxer Hellenistic Jews of the Dispersion had its
repercussion in the Christian community. There were at first two
parties, judaistic Christians who wanted all converts to be circumcised
and subject to the whole Mosaic law, and Hellenistic converts who
demanded no more than the acceptance of the Christian faith. The
controversy between these two parties is recorded in the Acts of the
Apostles. In the end the judaistic party disappeared altogether, for
the judaistic Christians which appear later in the Antioch of St. John
Chrysostom belonged to a heretical sect which deliberately tried to
revive Jewish usages. Possibly it may be said that Christianity is the
heir of Hellenistic Judaism, the irxheritor of that monotheistic moral
religion which so well suited the trend of Hellenistic thought.

The Christian Church received the Old
Testament, but used it as subordinate to the New. The prophecies were
treated as referring to Christ, its moral teaching as preparatory to a
fuller revelation in the gospel. As the Greek converts greatly
outnumbered the Jewish ones, it is not surprising that Greek education,
which implied Greek philosophy, very soon began to permeate Christian
teaching. Indeed it had already influenced Jewish thought as can be
seen in several books of the apocrypha, such as Wisdom and
Ecclesiasticus, which bear the impress of Stoic thought. In this, as in
many other respects, Christianity only continued the logical evolution
of Hellenistic Judaism. In this adaptation of Christianity to gentile
thought the leader was St. Paul whose epistles had a great influence on
the formation of Christian doctrine and its approximation to current
Greek philosophy. Like the Hellenistic Jews the Christians used the Old
Testament only in its Greek version, and the earlier formulation of its
doctrine was expressed in terms borrowed from Greek plfflosophy. Thus
from the beginning the Christian Church was shaped to be the teacher of
Greek intellectual culture as well as of evangelical doctrine. Later,
when controversies arose within the Church, these too were expressed in
Greek philosophical terms and fought out according to philosophical
principles.

Religion may be concerned only with ritual,
which is the case with most primitive religions, concerned only with
sacrifices and the due performance of sacred rites. A later stage is
reached when religion becomes a moral agency, which begins perhaps with
the observance of tabus. Last comes the development of speculative
theology, itself a form of philosophy which seeks to explain why things
are as they are and to account for man's place in the universe. The
ancient Egyptian religion seems to have reached this final stage in its
later days, but in Greek thought philosophy had superseded or absorbed
religion, and it was in a society where philosophy had practically
replaced religion that Christianity was evolved. The old Greek and
Roman religions, purely ritual and very largely magic, had no living
influence and held their ground only as traditional survivals to which
people were attached by long association. Morality was absorbed in
philosophy as well as speculation on man's place in the universe,
indeed his duty was essentially involved in the reason for his
existence. Thus Christianity was presented rather as a philosophy which
set itself to unravel the problem of existence. Undoubtedly it borrowed
a good deal from the mystery religions with which it had certain
similarities, but the dominating influence in the evolution of
Christianity was the current attitude of the Hellenistic world towards
religion, which was a philosophical attitude. In fact philosophy had
replaced religion in the older sense.

Although the Church inherited the Jewish
scriptures and followed the synagogue precedent in its liturgy, it
definitely broke with Judaism, and the break was clearly seen by the
Jewish authorities. Judaism was reverting to the ritualism of the past
and to national exclusiveness; Christianity advanced into a freer and
more open atmosphere for which Alexander's Conquests had cleared the
way. It was a centrifugal movement, Judaism going farther towards the
right, Christianity towards the left. The Jews aimed at a reformation
by complete reversion to the past, which always is the professed aim of
religious reformation. They regarded the,Christians with aversion as
pressing on more recklessly on the path of laxity which they esteemed
the cause of their own decadence. At a later period Jewish philosophers
and scientists made a valuable contribution to intellectual culture,
but that was in days when they were under Arab rule. No such tendency
appears in the older Jewish academies of Sora and Pumbaditha where
interest was concentrated in law and ritual observances.

The early Church, as pictured in the Acts of
the Apostles and the epistles of St. Paul, undoubtedly had a missionary
spirit. But that missionary spirit first appears as resulting from
persecution. It is related that the first "scattering"of Christian
teachers from Jerusalem took place when persecution followed the
martyrdom of St. Stephen. Very often in after times a similar reason
led to the preaching of Christianity in new districts. Probably the
British Church owed its origin to refugees from the persecution which
broke out in Lyons and Vienna. Persecution was not the only cause of
the outspread of Christianity, but it was one cause, Bud perhaps a
leading one.

Jewish opposition appears plainly in the
narrative of the Acts, and Jewish antagonism seems to have been the
principal cause of many, but not all, the earlier persecutions of the
Church. The first actual persecution of Christians as a community took
place in Rome under Nero, certainly instigated by Jews who were
powerful at court. After this there were outbreaks of popular
antagonism in many parts, especially in Asia Minor where Christians
were numerous, and in some of these outbreaks Jewish influence seems to
have been active. Under Trajan some attempt was made to regularize the
policy to be followed in dealing with the Christians. When Pliny was
governor of Bithynia he found many Christians there and a good many
disturbances took place for which they were blamed. Pliny had had
experience of legal administration in Rome, but apparently had had no
contact with cases connected with Christians, as such cases came before
the Praefectus Urbis or his deputy. He sought the Emperor's guidance,
and Trajan replied in letters which gave a precedent for dealing with
persons charged with practising this unauthorized religion. It was
decided that Christianity was a crime deserving of death, but it was
not permitted to make search for Christians and informers against them
incurred penalties. At a later period Domitius Ultianus compiled a
treatise, De offido proconsulis, of which the seventh book
gave a summary of anti-Christian legislation. This work would have
given us a complete view of the attitude of Roman law towards the
Christians, but unfortunittely only a few extracts survive, the most
important is Lactantius' indignant criticism (Lactantius, Instit., v,11, 12). The subject remains obscure, which is to be regretted as
undoubtedly persecution, or at least liability to persecution, was a
strong motive causing Christians to go outside the Roman Empire, and so
one of the chief causes of the spread of Christianity.

Some light is given by Hippolytus' account of
Callistus, a Christian slave who was entrusted by his master, also a
Christian, with funds to open a bank, but went bankrupt. He tried to
recover loans from debtors, amongst them some Jews, and was alleged to
have disturbed a synagogue in his efforts to get hold of them, and for
thus disturbing the worship of a legally authorized community was
brought before a judge. Obviously the Jews worked hard to get him
accused of Christianity by bringing this out incidentally in the
evidence: they could not bring it as a direct charge for fear of
incurring the penalties attached to laying information. Callistus was
sentenced as a Christian and condemned to labour in the Sardinian
mines, but after some time was included,in a pardon obtained by Marcia,
the concubine of the Emperor Commodus, who either was herself a
Christian or very well disposed towards the Christians. (Whole incident
in Von Dollinger, Hipollytus und Kallistus, ch. viii.) All
through the third century Christian interest was strong at court (cf.
Eusebius, H.E., vi, 34; vii, 10) The effective cause of the violent but
brief persecutions under Decius and Diocletian towards the end of that
century was that the Christians had become too powerful, practising
their religion too openly and building large churches. Before Decius
they had been protected by Roman law in holding property and the
subterranean cemeteries of Rome, covering considerable areas, were
their acknowledged property from the time of Pope Zephyrinus (202-219):
it was an innovation when Decius tracked down Christians even in their
cemeteries and seized their property. Persecution was occasional and
spasmodic, usually provoked by non-religious motives, but there was a
liability to persecution, and this undoubtedly led to some Christians
going outside the Roman frontiers, or at least moving to a province
where persecution was comparatively rare. The first beginnings of the
British Church seem to have been due to fugitives from persecution in
Gaul, and that church was by no means the only one which traced its
origin to refugees.

The desire to be safe from the liability to
persecution seems to have been responsible for the formation of a
flourishing church in Mesopotamia outside the Roman Empire. This
Mesopotamian Church, chiefly about Edessa, lived its own life in a
comparatively free atmosphere, and developed its own style of church
building and, apparently, its own system of discipline. Later, when the
empire became Christian and the Catholic Church was directed by Greek
bishops, much of this local Mesopotamian development was suppressed
with a high hand, but the fact remains that some of the earliest extant
evidence of church organization and building belongs to the area just
across the eastern frontier of the Roman Empire. This Mesopotamian area
had experienced Greek influence under the Seleucids. Greek influence
was brought to bear by the Romans whose frontier towards Parthia swayed
back and forth from time to time and who always had political interest
in the border lands. But it was the Church more than anything else
which brought about the Hellenization of that area across the frontier.

As it grew in prosperity the Church produced
literature. In Alexandria, as might be expected, some of its earliest
writers appeared, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and others, and about
A.D. 180 Hegesippus travelled about the Mediterranean world
investigating evidence for the apostolical tradition of the Church's
teaching and institutions. Shortly before Ms time Justin Martyr shows a
Christian teacher trying to combine current philosophy and Christian
doctrine. By the end of the second century Christianity was not merely
strong in the number of its adherents but well reinforced by its
literary output and its co-operation with philosophy. Christian
literature was in Greek, the earliest vernacular Christian literature
which came after was produced in Syriac and its classical standard was
the dialect of Edessa, much earlier than any Christian material in
Latin. Throughout the.Church generally the Old Testament was known only
in its Greek translation, as had been the case with the Egyptian Jews
in the days of Philo of Alexandria, and presumably with the Hellenistic
Jews generally. Vernacular versions of the Old Testament are mostly
translated from the Greek Septuagint, the older Syriac version alone
shows an independent source which is closer to the Hebrew original. It
may well be, however, that the Masoretic text which became the
authorized version of the Old Testament represents a text selected from
earlier divergent and varied texts, so that the Septuagint and its
versions sometimes at least go back to an older form which has been
rendered obsolete in Hebrew by the acceptance of a standardized text.

Although the Christian Church traced its origin
from the Jewish synagogue, it appears in history in a structure
organized, not on Jewish lines, but on lines following the structure of
the Roman Empire. This began before the Church had received formal
toleration, but became more pronounced after toleration had brought the
Church into closer relations with the secular State. It was in 313 that
the Emperor Constantine granted formal toleration to the Christian
religion and in 325 summoned the first general council at Nicaca to
define disputed points in Christian doctrine and regulate discipline.
From that time forward the Church was protected and to some extent
controlled by the State, though it was not until the days of Gratian
(368) that it was recognized as the established religion.

In its earlier days the Church consisted mainly
of urban congregations, over each a bishop with supporting group of
presbyters. But gradually it spread out into the rural areas and
congregations were added in outlying parts with presbyters only, each
attached in discipline to a neighbouring bishop. Thus territorial
dioceses were formed as the Church expanded from the cities which had
been its earlier home. Already in Nicene times these territorial units
were gathered together into confederations, like civil provinces, each
known as a diocese, the name having a much wider scope than it now
possesses. In the Eastern Church there were four such dioceses, the
Orient, Pontus, Asia, and Thrace. These were divided into eparchics,
each with one or two metropolitans. Thus Asia comprised the eparchies
of Ephesus, Sardis, Smyrna, and Pergamum. The chief bishop or
metropolitan of each eparchy came to be known as an archbishop. In the
end there was a general recognition of the primacy of the great
churches of Rome, Antioch, and after some hesitation Alexandria.
Afterwards for sentimental reasons Jerusalem was conceded similar rank,
though in fact subordinate to Antioch. The council of Chalcedon (canon
28) terminated the independence of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace and put
them under the bishop of Constantinople which was thus raised, in spite
of protests, to equality with Antioch and Alexandria. The bishop of
these greater groups of churches was called patriarch, aname
in frequent use in the post-Nicene age, but not formally recognized by
any conciliar decree until the ninth century.

The Mesopotamian Church across the frontier was
regarded as within the diocese of Antioch, but at an early date its
chief bishop received the title of Catholicus, a title already employed
by Constantine in writing to the Bishop of Carthage, and used in the
civil administration for a procurator or deputy of a provincial
governor. This title is used by Procopius (ii, 25) for the head of the
Persian Church and ultimately became the perquisite of the Bishop of
Seleucia. After the Nestorian schism the bishops of Seleucia
appropriated it as the distinctive title of the head of the Nestorian
community.

From the Nicene age onwards the Church was
steadily organizing itself on lines similar to those already employed
in the civil administration of the empire, though the areas of
provinces, dioceses, and eparchies was not in all cases identical with
those of the civil structure. Thus organized as a kind of replica of
the Roman Empire it very efficiently and thoroughly assimilated the
Christian communities, not only of Mesopotamia but also of Persia, to
Hellenistic standards. Such standards applied to social organization
prepared the way for Greek culture. The Christian religion, unlike some
of the older religions, was not based on ritual observances alone, nor
entirely on rules of moral conduct. The Greek influence it inherited
came from that later Greek thought in which religion was absorbed in
philosophy. Christianity set a body of theological doctrine in the
forefront: ritual observances were designed as expressions of that body
of doctrine, and morality also was built up on a basis of doctrinal
teaching. All this doctrine was strongly Coloured by philosophy, much
of it was simply philosophy expressed in theological terms. The
philosophy thus adopted and utilized by the Christian Church was that
philosophical teaching current in the Greek world during the earlier
centuries of the Christian era, the eclectic philosophy which professed
to be derived from Plato

and Aristotle. Such philosophy guided and
directed the controversies raised in the Church by Arius, Nestorius,
Eutyches, and others. The problems debated were suggested by
philosophy, the conclusions reached were the results of philosophical
treatment. Perhaps the most salient point is the complete adoption of
the Aristotelian logic as the means of investigation and argument.
However much Christian sects differed in their tenets, all alike
accepted the Aristotelian logic as the method to be employed in
investigation and solution.

Thus the Christian Church remodelled the
communities of its converts in conformity with the social structure of
the Roman Empire, grouping Persians, Arabs, and other Orientals
according to a system of dioceses and provinces which was copied from
the imperial administration, and promulgated amongst them educational
standards which reproduced those established in Alexandria. The chief
source of scientific and philosophical material received by the Arabs
came through Christian influence.

It has been disputed whether Muhammad owed most
to Jewish or Christian predecessors, apparently he owed a great deal to
both. But when we come to the 'Abbasid period when Greek literature and
science began to tell upon Arabic thought, there can be no further
question. The heritage of Greece was passed on by the Christian Church.

THE NESTORIANS

(1) THE FIRST SCHOOL OF NISIBIS

NISIBIS lay within the territory ceded to Rome
in 298. As it then became a frontier town commanding the main route
between Upper Mesopotamia and Damascus, the Romans fortified it very
strongly. Probably there already were Christians there, as in so many
parts of Mesopotamia, and some few years later, in 300 or 30I, it was
recognized as an episcopal see, its first bishop Babu, who was
succeeded by Jacob. The town had a great many Jewish inhabitants also
and possessed a Jewish academy founded by R. Judah ben Bathyra, an
eminent tanna seventeen of whose halakoth are quoted
in the Mishna. Probably there were three persons of this name, father,
son, and grandson: the first living whilst the Temple was still
standing in Jerusalem, the last contemporary with R. Akiba, with whom
he is said to have had controversies. Apparently the Jews suffered
severely when the Romans took the town, and it is probable that this
involved the end of their academy, at any rate it is not mentioned
afterwards.

Bishop Jacob attended the Council of Nicaea in
325 and subscribed its decrees. Not long after that council Eustathius,
Bishop of Antioch, founded a school at Antioch in imitation of the
great school of Alexandria, and his example was followed by Bishop
Jacob who founded a similar school at Nisibis, with the special purpose
of spreading Greek theology amongst Syriac-speaking Christians, whose
theology and the arrangement of whose churches, as Strzygowski points
out, did not conform to the accepted standards of the Catholic Church.
He placed a presbyter named Ephraem in charge of this academy. Ephraem
became a celebrated teacher and raised the school of Nisibis to great
fame. Not only so, but he was also distinguished by his literary work.
He was not the first to Write in Syriac, but in later ages he was
always regarded as the standard authority for classical Syriac. Whilst
he presided over the school at Nisibis he composed poems which became
the models of Syriac verse. He is said to have presided over the school
for a period not far short of sixty years, presumably he was quite a
young man when he was appointed, and the end of the school was by no
means the end of his career. The chronology, however, is not altogether
clear.

The school at Antioch had a chequered history.
Cornparatively early in its career, in 331, Eustathius himself was sent
into exile and left the school in the hands of Flavian, who took as his
associate Diodorus, an ascete who had long been his intimate friend.
All these three, Bishop Eustasius, Flavian, and Diodorus were prominent
in controversy with the Arians, a prominence responsible for many of
the troubles which came upon the school of Antioch, for at the time the
A.rians had much political power, and that became more so after the
death of Constantine in 337. The school, however, continued until 379
when Diodorus became Bishop of Tarsus: in 381he was one of the
bishops who consecrated Flavian to the see of Antioch. When Diodorus
was raised to the episcopate the school dispersed, but one of its
teachers, named Theodore, continued teaching a few members who adhered
to him until 392, when he was made Bishop of Mopseustia. Diodorus of
Tarsus and Theodore of Mopseustia came to be regarded as the leading
theologians of the Syrian Church, the Greek speaking church dependent
on Antioch, and their writings which, of course, were in Greek, were
taken as the bulwarks of the faith in Syria. Greatly revered as
teachers of orthodoxy their teaching differed in method from that in
vogue in the school of Alexandria, and it would seem that such
difference in scholastic method was accentuated by a racial jealousy
between the Syrians and Egyptians, for certainly there was a rivalry,
not altogether friendly, between Antioch and Alexandria. No one could
have suggested any doubt as to the orthodoxy of these two distinguished
theologians, but later ages suspected them of having sown
unintentionally the seeds of Nestorianism, and some incautious
expressions used by Theodore were seized upon as suspect of implied
Nestorianism and so were formally condemned at the fifth General
Council held at Constantinople in 553.

Meanwhile Nisibis also had its troubles. Bishop
Jacob died probably soon after 34I when he was visited by Milles,
Bishop of Susa in Persia. Not long after this came Julian's unfortunate
expedition against Persia, and after its disastrous end in 363 the five
provinces acquired by the Romans in 298 had to be handed back to
Persia. In the war which ended thus calamitously Ephraem, the head of
the school of Nisibis, had taken a leading part in defending the city
against the Persians and, as the city now passed into Persian
occupation, he felt it impossible to remain there and fled to Edessa.

No doubt there were many other refugees and
Ephraem, as an unknown fugitive, had to undertake menial labour to earn
his daily bread. For some time at least he found employment as an
attendant in the public baths. But friends discovered him and
encouraged him to resume teaching, and thus a Christian school was
established at Edessa. The school of Nisibis had not migrated to
Edessa, it had simply scattered when Nisibis fell into the hands of the
Persians, but as its head resumed his work in Edessa there was a
continuity between the two schools and that of Edessa may be considered
as a revival of the school of Nisibis. Ephraem lived twelve years after
the fall of Nisibis and died in 375. Not all that period was spent in
teaching; besides his literary work he seems to have travelled and to
have spent some time as a hermit. After his death the school had a
prosperous career. Its teaching was carried on in Syriac, the Syriac of
Edessa being reckoned as the literary dialect of Syrian Christians.

In 412 Rabbula was appointed Bishop of Edessa.
He was the son of a converted pagan priest of Kerinesrin (Chalcis) and
a man of considerable energy. The school was under a teacher named
Ihibha or Hibha, whose name is rendered in Greek as Ibas. Some while
before this there had been a revival of learning which seems to have
commenced in Asia Minor, probably in Cappadocia, and reached the
Syriac-speaking community in the course of the fifth century. It seems
to have been connected with an ecclesiastical development which centred
at Caesarea in Cappadocia. From St. Gregory Thaumaturgus and onwards
the church there attained a great reputation as a model in matters
liturgical (cf Brightman, Eastern Liturgies, Appendix N, pp.
521-8),which culminated in a revised liturgy produced by St.
Basil (d- 379), which became the established rite of Constantinople and
still remains the principal liturgy of the Orthodox Greek Church. The
second Greek liturgy, in more general use, bearing the name of St. John
Chrysostom (d. 407), is simply an abridged form of the liturgy of St.
Basil, whilst there is a third form, wrongly ascribed to St. Gregory
(d. 604), which also is based on St. Basil. Of these the full liturgy
of St. Basil is now used only on the Sundays of Lent (except Palm
Sunday), Maunday Thursday, the eves of Christmas, Epiphany, and Easter,
and on St. Basil's day (1st January): that of St. Gregory is
used on weekdays in Lent. This liturgical development was a byproduct
of an extensive and influential wave of cultural influence which spread
out from Cappadocia to Byzantium, and then passed onwards through the
Oriental churches into Asia. Edessa, as the metropolis of the
Syriac-speaking Church and the focus of the Syriac phase of Hellenistic
intellectual life, became the distributing centre of the Cappadocian
renaissance.

Nisibis was taken by the Persians in 363, and
Ephraem, who had been its head, fled to Edessa. As a refugee he had to
earn his livelihood in a humble way and entered the service of a
bath-keeper, but devoted his spare time to teaching and reasoning with
those who cared for his company. One day when he was thus occupied he
was overheard by an aged hermit who had come down from his hermitage to
visit the city, and who rebuked him for being still interested in
earthly knowledge. This caused Ephraem to retire to the mountains and
spend some time in a hermitage meditating, reading, and literary
composition, which bore fruit in some of his hymns and poems. At that
time a revival of learning which greatly influenced the Church was in
progress in Cappadocia, especially associated with Basil of Caesarea,
ard this induced Ephraem to travel to Cappadocia and visit Basil,
perhaps going to Egypt, the "holy land "of monasticism, on the way.
Before long, however, the news that Edessa was disturbed by the
teaching of various heresies arising out of the teaching of Bar Daisan
who had lived in that city in the second century, caused him to return
and resume his teaching. Later he again retired to the hermit life, but
this time was recalled by the news that Edessa was suffering from a
severe famine, and by his presence and exhortations he succeeded in
inducing the wealthier citizens to give generously to the relief of
their more indigent neighbours. His death took place not long
afterwards in 373. Considering these interruptions of the ten years of
his sojourn in Edessa we can hardly regard him as organizing and
directing a school there, but it appears that his influence gave
impetus and direction to the group of disciples who gathered round him,
and after his visit to Cappadocia this meant that they were brought
into touch with the Cappadocian renaissance.

Ephraem's most prominent pupil was Zenobius
Gaziraeus, a deacon of Edessa, who wrote against the Marcionites and
was the teacher of Isaac of Antioch. At first the school of Edessa
seems to have been an informal group, so that it is hardly possible to
describe Ephraem as its first head and Zenobius as his successor. But
out of this group gradually developed what became a well-known academy,
though it had no official and formal foundation like the schools of
Nisibis and Antioch. It might, of course, be reckoned as a continuation
of the school of Nisibis closed in 363, as it was commenced and guided
by one who had been the official head of the Nisibis school, but there
was no migration of teachers and students which could justify its being
regarded as a colony of Nisibis.

There is plain evidence of work done at Edessa
in the later fourth century in translation from Greek into Syriac. The
manuscript, Brit. Mus. Add. 12150 of date 411, contains Syriac
translations of the Theophania and Martyrs of Palestine of
Eusebius, and of Titus of Bostra's discourses against the Manichaeans,
whilst a St. Petersburg manuscript Of 462 contains a Syriac version of
the Ecclesiastical Histoty of Eusebius. (The Syriac version of
the Theophania, edited by S. Lee, London, 1842, trans. Camb.,
1843; of the Martyrs of Pal., ed. trs. W. Cureton, London,
1861; of the Eccles. Hist., by W. Wright and N. McLean, Camb.,
1898; of Titus ofBostra, P. de Lagarde, Berlin,
1859.) Internal evidence shows that these texts have passed through the
hands of a succession of scribes, so must have been made some time
before 411and 462 respectively, Eusebius died in 340, Titus of
Bostra in 371, so the translations into Syriac may have been made
during the authors' lifetime, or very shortly afterwards, as was the
case with the letter of Cyril, of Alexandria, "On the true faith in our
Lord Jesus Christ to the Emperor Theodosius," which Rabbula, the Bishop
of Edessa, translated into Syriac as soon as he received a copy from
its author.

The school was well established and of good
repute amongst the Syriac-speaking community of Mesopotamia and Persia
and most of Persian bishops were its alumni when in 41 I - 1 2 Rabbula
was appointed Bishop of Edessa, and about the same time or soon
afterwards Hibha (Ibas) was made head of the school. The works
of Theodore of Mopseustia, and Diodorus of Tarsus, were then the
standard theological authorities of the Syrian Church, and Hibha made a
Syriac version of Theodore's work for use at Edessa and then, as the
terminology and logic of that work offered difficulties to oriental
students, he also made a Syriac translation of the Isagoge of
Porphyry, which was the usual introduction to logic, and of Aristotle's
Hermeneutica. These translations cannot be identified, but
translations of Aristotle's Hermeneutica and Anatytica Priora as
well as of Porphyry's Isagoge, with commentary attached exist,
made by Probus, who is described as presbyter, archdeacon, and chief
physician of Antioch, which seems to be contemporary and it may well be
that the version of the text is that of Hibha. 'Abdyeshu' bar Berikha
(thirteenth to fourteenth century) speaks of Hibha, Kumi, and Probus as
contemporaries and all translators of Aristotle. Of Kumi's version
nothing is known. Early in the sixth century, therefore, these works on
logic were known at Edessa in Syriac versions. (Syriac vers. of
Porphyry, ed. A. van Hoonacker in J.A., xvi, 70-160; Aristotle's Hermeneutica,
ed. G. Hoffmann, Leipzig, 1869, 2nd ed. 1878; Analytica, ed. J.
Friedmann (Erlanger Dissert.), Berlin, 1898.)

In 428 Nestorius3, a monk of Antioch, was made Patriarch of
Constantinople, an outsider chosen to avoid inflaming the strong
faction spirit prevailing in the capital, which would have been the
inevitable result of appointing a local candidate. Nestorius brought
with him a brother monk of Antioch Anastasius. Both of these were
products of the school of Antioch, trained in the theology of Theodore
and Diodorus. Before long a sermon preached by Anastasius was made the
subject of a complaint to the Patriarch. The objection laid was that
Anastasius denied the applicability of the term Theotokos to
the Blessed Virgin Mary, asserting that she was the mother only of the
human body of Christ. To some extent the question was one of
psychology: Does the soul enter into man at birth, or is it. present
before birth? Orthodox fathers have differed in their inswer. If the
reasonable soul does not enter into the body until birth, it might be
assumed that the Logos, the Divine Person of Christ, would not
have entered his body whilst it was as yet only an animal body, not
human until the reasonable soul was added. Anastasius teaching was not
that of Diodorus and Theodore, for they do not seem to have dwelt upon
this point. To the populace the refusal of the title Theotokos to the
Blessed Virgin seemed blasphemous and passion was inflamed. Beneath
this were the rival tendencies to Antioch and Alexandria. Antioch
inclined towards what we may call a semi-rationalist treatment of
theology, Alexandria towards an allegorical and mystical treatment, and
the Alexandrian school had a strong outpost in Constantinople.

When complaint was made to Nestorius he
defended Anastasius and the controversy became embittered. As it raged
in the capital city, other churches intervened, opposition to Nestorius
being stirred up by Cyril the Patriarch of Alexandria. At length the
Emperor intervened and a general council was held at Ephesus in 431 at
which Nestorius was deprived and excommunicated. But many Syrians
disapproved of this decision, repudiated the council, and separated
from the orthodox Church. These separatists were known as Nestorians.

The Christian school at Edessa, trained in the
theology of Diodorus and Theodore, generally supported Nestorius,
although there was a strong minority opposed to his teaching. It became
the focus of Nestorianism and in this had Hibha as leader. At first the
bishop Rabbula took the Nestorian position, but he was won over by
Cyril's arguments and stood out against the teaching prevalent in the
school. At his death in 435 Hibha, the head of the school and a
prominent Nestorian, was appointed bishop and the policy of Rabbula was
reversed.

In the controversy raised about Nestorius his
leading opponent was Cyril of Alexandria, whose opposition admittedly
was conducted in a somewhat intemperate manner. Even at the Council of
Ephesus his action was arbitrary, for he pressed the council to
commence without waiting for the arrival of the Asiatic bishops, some
of whom would probably have supported Nestorius. When those Asiatic
bishops arrived they found that matters were already decided and
Nestorius condemned. Greatly indignant at this having been done in
their absence, they held a rival council under the presidency ofjohn,
Patriarch of Antioch, and there decreed the deposition of Cyril of
Alexandria, and his chief supporter Memnon, Bishop of Ephesus. The
decrees of both councils required the endorsement of the Emperor
Theodosius. He, offended at Cyril's arrogant behaviour, ratified the
deposition of Nestorius, Cyril, and Memnon, then changed his mind and
permitted Cyril and Memnon to retain their sees, but compelled
Nestorius to return to his monastery near Antioch, where he remained
until 435, when he was banished to Petra in Arabia, though he seems
actually to have been allowed to go to an oasis in Upper Egypt. Whilst
there he was carried off by a nomadic tribe, but escaped and was driven
from one place to another by imperial officials, until he died in
circumstances unknown some time after 439.

Cyril of Alexandria died in 444 and was
succeeded by Dioscoros who followed Cyril's teaching, but surpassed him
in violence and autocratic self-assertion. He at once began to search
out and persecute all who could be suspected of any tendency towards
Nestorianism. Then a new dispute was raised by Eutyches, the aged
archimandrite of a monastery at Constantinople, who propounded the
doctrine that in the Incarnation the humanity of Christ was completely
merged in his Deity, and the Nestorians (wrongly) asserted that their
opponents were Eutychians. Eutyches had been a supporter of Cyril, but
his teaching was opposed by Eusebius, Bishop of Dorylacum, who had also
been one of Cyril's supporters, and the matter was brought before
Flavian, Patrich of Constantinople, and his local synod. Flavian was
one of the Antiochcne school, but of the moderate wing, and was drawn
into the controversy reluctantly, but at length Eutyches was deposed
and excommunicated. To Dioscoros, who appears to have inclined towards
Eutyches' view, or at any rate considered it nearer the truth than the
doctrine of Nestorius, this seemed like a revival of Nestorianism and,
by the favour of the Empress, he obtained a re-hearing of the case
before another synod at Constantinople a year later, but this synod did
not reverse the sentence against Eutyches. Dissatisfied with this
Dioscoros induced the Emperor to summon a general council for the
extirpation of Nestorianism in 449, and at this council he himself
presided. But when the council met his conduct was violent and arrogant
so that the assembly became a scene of confusion, well deserving the
name of Latrocinium or "Synod of Brigands", which Pope Leo
applied to it. Eutyches was restored, his accuser, Eusebius of
Dorylaeum, was not even granted a hearing, and Flavian was deposed.
When some of the bishops present ventured to remonstrate, Dioscoros
called in a band of soldiers and threatened them into submission. At
this council Hibha, Bishop of Edessa, was deposed and a pronounced
Cyrillian Nonnus was appointed in his place.

But the proceedings of the "Synod of Brigands"
aroused general disapproval, and those who disapproved most turned to
Rome for support. After a great deal of heated controversy another
general council was assembled at Chalcedon in 451, and this council,
strongly prejudiced against Dioscoros, reversed the decisions Of 449,
deposed Dioscoros, and drew up a statement of faith which seemed a
reasonable compromise. Dioscoros and his partisans refused that
statement and separated from the State Church. Thus the Eastern Church
was divided into three bodies, the Orthodox or State Church, the
Nestorians, and the extreme anti-Nestorians who rejected the Confession
of Faith proposed at Chalcedon and are commonly known as Monophysites.

There has been a good deal of antagonism to
Hibha's appointment to the see of Edessa and the objectors made their
complaint to Domnus who became Patriarch of Antioch in 442. Domnus
seems to have been unwilling to listen to this complaint, but in 448 a
formal charge was laid in such a form that it could not be ignored and
Hibha was summoned to Antioch to answer the accusations brought against
him. The synod was held at Antioch after Easter and only a few bishops
attended, the extant decrees are signed by nine bishops only. Eighteen
charges were laid against Hibha: one of these was that he had
anathematized Cyril of Alexandria as a lieretic, and this he admitted.
Other chax-gcs, that he was a Nestorian, that he had uttered
blasphemous words in a sermon on Easter Day, 445, and other matters he
denied, Of four Witnesses who appeared against him two went away to
Constantinople because they considered that Domnus was biassed in
Hibha's favour, and in their absence the trial was postponed
indefinitely. The two who had gone to the capital appealed to the
Emperor and the case was remitted to a special commission which was
called to meet at Tyre, but this was afterwards changed to Berytus
(Beirut). The commissioners declined to come to any definite conclusion
and a compromise was effected on 25th February by which Hibha agreed to
pronounce an anathema publicly upon Nestorius and to accept the decrees
of Ephesus. Such a truce could not be permanent: Hibha's enemies were
active and had friends at court, so another council was arranged at
Ephesus later in the same year, which was the notorious Latrocinium,
and at this he was deposed and excommunicated. But the scandal
caused by that council brought a change of feeling generally and the
Council of Chalcedon in 451 restored him as unlawfully deprived, but
required him to anathematize both Nestorius and Eutyches, which he did,
and resumed his see. Apparently Hibha's personal character told greatly
in his favour and he retained undisturbed possession of his see until
his death on 28th October, 437, when Nonnus, who had been put aside at
Hibha's restoration, resumed the episcopal office.

When Hibha was appointed bishop he placed his
pupil Barsauma, a native of Northern Mesopotamia, in charge of the
school. Barsauma shared Hibha's deprivation in 449, and presumably was
restored when the Council of Chalcedon revoked the proceedings of the Latrocinium.
When Hibha died he was still head of the school, and as the leading
supporter of Nestorianism was the chief target of Nonnus' persecuting
zeal. This became so intolerable that Barsauma decided to leave Edessa
and seek a new life in the kingdom of Persia. Whether he was actually
expelled is not clear: the opponents of Nestorianism in the school of
Edessa were in the rhinority, but they were a strong minority and now
they had the bishop's support. The view has been proposed that the
school at Edessa was Nestorian, the city anti-Nestorian.

The history of this period contains several
difficulties in its chronology, which arc not easily solved. Certain
fixed points can be determined from outside sources, and these are: In
435 Hibha became Bishop of Edessa, and apparently entrusted the school
there to Barsauma then, or soon afterwards. 449, the Latrocinium or
"Brigands' Synod" deposed both from office. In that year there was a
popular outbreak against Barsauma demanding his expulsion from the
city. He was a leading and very contentious Nestorian. There was a
strong anti-Nestorian minority at Edessa: it has been suggested that
the school was Nestorian, the people generally were not,

but this is dubious.

451, Hibha was restored to office by the
Council of Chalcedon, probablv Barsauma was restored at the same time.

457, Hibha died and his successor Nonnus
enforced the Chalcedonian decrees, dealing harshly with the Nestorians.
As a result some of the Nestorian lecturers (including Barsauma?)
migrated to Persia.

471, Cyrus became Bishop of Edessa and
continued a strongly anti-Nestorian policy.

482, the Emperor Zeno endeavoured to win back
the Monophysites who had separated from the Church and published the
Henoticon as a compromise. This Henoticon was primarily addressed to
the Church of Egypt and in it the Emperor condemned Nestorius, approved
Cyril of Alexandria, and neither approved nor rejected the canons of
Chalcedon. The imperial government was anxious to conciliate the
Monophysites, but do not seem to have troubled much about the
comparatively unimportant Nestorians. The Nestorians regarded this as a
direct attack upon their religion and were greatly disturbed at the way
in which, as they viewed it, the government had gone over to their
enemies, the Monophysites.

489, the Emperor Zeno was persuaded by Cyrus,
the Bishop of Edessa, to close the school there finally and the
lecturers who were Nestorians forthwith migrated to Persia. They were
met by Barsauma and induced to settle at Nisibis, where they opened a
school entirely Nestorian in its teaching, and this school was directly
descended from the school of Nisibis and afterwards became the great
central university of the Nestorian community.

There were two definite purges of the school of
Edessa, one in 457, the other in 487, all the remaining Nestorians
going away after this latter.

The contemporary Persian kings were-

438-457 Yazdgerd.

457-484 Peroz.

484-488 Balash.

488-53I Qawad I.

The contemporary Catholici or metropolitans
were-

415-420 Yahbalaha.

420 Ma'na, Farbokht.

421-456 Dadisho'.

457-484 Babowai.

485-495-6 Aqaq (Acacius).

497-502 -3 Babai.

The historian Shem'on, of Beth Arsham, says
that Barsauma, Aqaq, Ma'na, John, Paul, son of Qaqai, Pusai, Abraham,
and Narsai, all lecturers of Edessa, migrated to Persia after Hibha's
death (457), were received by Babowai, and settled in Persian sees.
Barsauma then set himself to rally the Nestorians and force
Nestorianism on the Persian Church. Shem'on is a strongly prejudiced
Monophysite.

It seems clear that Barsauma was befriended by
Babowai, who presented him to King Perez, and as the Catholicos vouched
for his capacity to negotiate with the Romans, Peroz gave him the
oversight of the frontier defences, and subsequently employed him on a
commission to check the boundary with the Persian Marzban, the Roman
dux, and the king of the Arabs. All this must have taken place before
the summer of 484 when King Perez died, and probably before the April
of that year when Babowai was executed.

During the period 457-484 Barsauma took drastic
measures to promote Nestorianism in Persia. He persuaded the king that
it was necessary that the Persian Church should be differentiated from
the orthodox Church in the Roman Empire, and one measure he took to do
this was to induce the bishops to marry, which fitted in very well with
the Persian idea that it was every man's duty to be married and rear
children. To enforce this he held a council at Bait Lapat
(Jundi-Shapur) la April, 4,84, a synod attended by only a few bishops,
and there decreed the legality of episcopal marriage. The synod was
afterwards adjudged to be null and void as Barsauma was not the
metropolitan, who alone was entitled to convoke synods, and
consequently its decrees are not included in the Synod.Orient.
No doubt Barsauma counted on being made Catholicos at Babowai's
death, but as his protector Peroz died soon afterwards, before the
bishops met to elect a new metropolitan, they were able to hold a free
election and, already aware that Barsauma was a man of turbulent and
tyrannical tempers preferred to choose Aqaq (Acacius), who was also an
alumnus of the school of Edessa. The new Catholicos held a synod at
Beth 'Adrai in August, 485, at which the canons of Beit Lapat were
confirmed, and a more formal council at Seleucia in February, 486,
whose acts have come down to us (Synod. Orient., 299-309), and
from these we can gather the general tendency of Barsauma's changes
designed to adapt the Nestorian Church to Persian standards. All this
seems to have been a reaction against the anti-Nestorian development in
the Roman Empire under Zeno. Six letters which passed between Barsauma
and the Catholicos Acacius are preserved in Synod. Orient., 532-9,
and reveal him as a strong opponent of everything hostile to
Nestorianism and a devoted servant of the Persian crown.

Narsai, who may have remained at Edessa until
the school was finally closed in 489 and have succeeded Barsauma as
head of that school, or may have accompanied Barsauma in his migration
to Persia before that, as Shem'on of Beth Arsham says, was equally
vigorous in his advocacy of Nestorianism, but for a period was opposed
to Barsauma and harshly treated by him: undoubtedly Barsauina was a man
of overbearing and arbitrary temper. After he was made Bishop of
Nisibis (485), probably after the closing of the school of Edessa
(489), Barsauma established the school of Nisibis and placed it under
the direction of Narsai (cf. below).

Shem'on associates a third person with Barsauma
and Narsai as spreading Nestorianism in Persia after 457, a rather
obscure character called Ma'na who is described as having ultimately
become cathohcus. But the only catholicos of this name which appears in
the list of the Persian metropolitans was made catholicos in 420, in
the last year of King Yazdgerd I, thirtyseven years before the death of
Ribha. Shem'on further describes him as having translated Syriac books
into Old Persian and as making a Syriac translation of the commentary
of Theodore of Mopscustia for Hibha. According to the Nestorian
chronicles Yazdgerd I became a persecutor in the last year of his
reign, urged on by the native priesthood who were alarined at the
spread of Christianity, which probably means that many Mazdeans had
been converted to Christianity, contrary to Persian law. So Yazdgerd
deposed Ma'na, forbade him to control the affairs of the church, and
relegated him to his native province. Mare and Elias of Nisibis refer
to Mm as being banished and imprisoned, but liberated on the
undertaking that neither he nor any other should claim the title of
catholicos. His name does not occur at all in the diptychs of the
Nestorian Church, and the chronicles give Ma'na, Farbokht, and Dadisho'
as becoming catholicos in 420 or 421,but agree that Dadisho'
held that office from 421 to 456 and was then followed by Barsauma's
friend Babowai. The most probable solution seems to be that at the
death of the catholicos Yabalaha in 420 there was a disputed election
with three candidates, that Ma'na and Farbokht held their own for a
while, then in 421 Dadisho obtained general recognition, the
comparatively obscure Majna being afterwards confused with a namesake
who left Edessa with Barsauma.

There is another obscure name which sometimes
seems to replace that of Ma'na, Mari the Persian. He, like Ma'na, is
described as of Beit Ardashir, which is the official name for Seleucia,
so it is implied that he was Bishop of Seleucia and consequently
Catholicos. But no catholicos of that name occurs in the lists of
metropolitans. He is said to have corresponded with Hibha, but the
catholicos in Hibha's days was Dadisho'. It has been suggested that
Mari stands for Dadisho': the term means "lord", a complimentary title
usually prefixed to the name of the catholicos, which has been
accidentally taken for his name. Admittedly the name Dadisho' was
difficult to transliterate in Greek (cf. Labourt, Le Christianismedans I'Empire Perse, P. 133, note6).

The other alumni who migrated from Edessa to
Persia are easier to enumerate. They are, Aqaq (Acacius), who became
catholicos in 485; Aba Yazadid; Yuhanna (John of Beth Garmai, cast of
the Tigris), who was made Bishop of Beth Sari) Abraham the Mede; Paul,
the son of Qaqi, who became Bishop of Beth Huzaye (Ahwaz), and died
about 535; Micah, who became Bishop of Lashom of Beth Garmai; Pusi, who
became Bishop of Huzaye; Ezalaya, of the monastery of Kefar Mari; and
Abshota of Nineveh. All these are enumerated with derisive nick-names
by Shem'on of Beth Arsham as those who adhered to Nestorian teaching at
Edessa after 457, and most of them are described as pupils of Narsai,
which may imply that they continued under his instruction after he had
removed to Nisibis. All these were Persians, evidently the cream of the
theological students of the Persian Church who had been sent to
complete their studies at Edessa, the leading Syriac university, and
they now returned home such men probably were marked out for high
office in any case.

All this shows the steady transfer of Greek
scholarship, in a modified Syriac form, from Edessa across the Persian
frontier to Nisibis, whence it ultimately spread through the Nestorian
community, and so reached the Arabs. It is a distinct link in the chain
of transmission, but a link which at one time almost broke through, and
then was renewed. That has now to be considered.

The Greek scholarship transmitted from the
school of Edessa to the Persian school of Nisibis consisted mainly of
the logical works of Aristotle with the Isagoge of Porphyry.
The study of the Aristotelian logic was introduced amongst the
Syriac-speaking Christians by Hibha, who translated, or procured the
translation, of Aristotle's Hermeneutica andAnalytica
Priora, with Porphyry's Isagoge, and these were soon
circulated with the commentaries of Probus (c. 450), independent
of the Greek commentators but with some use of Ammonius. At a later
date the Nestorians employed Ammonius' commentary, whilst the
Monophysites preferred that of John Philoponus. In the first place
Hibha had introduced the Aristotelian logic to illustrate and explain
the theological teaching of Theodore, of Mopseustia, and that logic
remained permanently the necessary introduction to theological study in
all Nestorian education. Ultimately it was that Aristotelian logic
which, with the Greek medical, astronomical, and mathematical writers,
was passed on to the Arabs.

Barsauma is stated to have composed metrical
homilies, hymns, and a liturgy. His most interesting literary
production is the series of six letters which he wrote to the
Catholicos Acacius, fortunately preserved in the Synodicon
Orientale, which has been edited by J. Chabot, with transl. and
notes, (Paris, 1902.)

Narsai, whom Barsauma placed in charge of the
restored school of Nisibis, was a voluminous writer, though only
fragments of his works survive. 'Abdisho' ascribes to him scriptural
commentaries, 36o metrical homilies, a liturgy, expositions of the
Eucharistic liturgy and Baptism, and various hymns of which two are
often included in the Nestorian Psaiter (Daily Office).

Narsai died probably, between 500 and 520, and
was succeeded by his nephew Abraham, Of his pupils the best known were
John of Nisibis and Joseph Huzaya, who died about 575. John of Nisibis
was the author of a number of commentaries on scripture and other
theological works: "If the discourse on the plague at Nisibis and the
death of Khosraw I. Anoshirwan be really by him, he was alive in 579 in
the spring of which year that monarch died" (Wright, Hist. Syr.
Lit., 115)- Joseph Huzaya was the first Syriac grammarian (cf.
Merx, Hist. artis grammat. apud Syros, Leipzig, 1889, pp. 26
sqq.).

In passing through the medium of a foreign
language any form of intellectual culture is liable to suffer
modification, though this may be merely superficial, and such
undoubtedly was true of Greek scholarship as it passed through Syriac
translations. But this change was most pronounced in the Nestorian
atmosphere, for that became more definitely oriental after Barsauma's
deliberate policy of Persianizing the Nestorian Church. His efforts
resulted in making a great cleavage between Greek Christianity as it
existed within the Roman Empire, and Nestorian Christianity at home in
Persia. The Nestorian schism had already made a division in doctrine:
the synods Of 484 and the following years made a great difference in
discipline until they were repealed in 544: in worship a divergence
arose from the fact that the Nestorians after 457 were out of touch
with the liturgical life of the Eastern Church at large, and this was
accentuated by the compilation of special liturgies by Barsauma and
others: politically there was a cleavage because the Greek Church
remained under the imperial government at Byzantium, whilst the
Nestorians were subjects of the Persian King: and culturally a
separation arose from the fact that students, theological or other,
ceased to visit for study those lands where Greek was still a living
language. This cleavage, begun by Barsauma, became wider under his
immediate successors.

Acacius and his successor Babai had received an
education which, though Syriac in form, was Greek in substance. After
that the episcopate rapidly became more Persian, and as it orientalized
it degenerated.

The discipline of the Eastern Church encourages
a married secular (parochial) clergy, married before ordination,
marriage after ordination and second marriages not being permitted:
monks and nuns are of course celibate, and bishops and certain other
dignitaries are chosen only from the (unmarried) regular clergy.
Hormizd III, son of Yazdgerd II, who for a brief period occupied the
Persian throne after his father's death and was then replaced by Peroz,
had persuaded the Catholicos Babowai to marry a girl of great beauty
whom he selected, holding the Persian opinion that it was every man's
duty to marry. Babowai could not refuse, but at once sent back the
damsel to her family. Peroz, in his friendship for Barsauma, acted
similarly: Barsauma could not refuse, but kept his bride though
abstaining from marital relations with her, according to the Nestorian
historians. But Barsauma, desiring to differentiate the Nestorians from
the Greeks and wishing to please the king, advised that the bishops be
permitted to marry, even after ordination: he desired that Christian
clergy should enjoy a good repute in the eyes of the pagans and their
magi.

Barsauma's policy resulted in the canons passed
by the council held at Seleucia in 486. After affirming Nestorian
doctrine (canon 1), it.was decreed that monks may not intrude
in towns where there already are parochial clergy or minister the
sacraments, they must remain in their monasteries or desert hermitages
(canon 2), the vow of celibacy binds only cloistered religious and no
other clergy, those already deacons may marry, and no more persons may
be ordained deacons unless they are married and have children, and
priests like all other Christians are allowed to contract second
marriages. From 486 until those canons were repealed, the Persian
(Nestorian) Church was undoubtedly orientalized and was regarded by the
rest of Christendom as a degenerate byproduct of Christianity.

The death of Barsauma did not check the
Persianization of the Nestorian Church, and a council held at Seleucia
in 499 formally approved the marriage of the Catholicos, the bishops,
and priests.

At the death of the Catholicos Babai in 502 or
503 there followed a period of anarchy when the Persian bishops were
unable to agree on the appointment of a metropolitan. At last Babai's
archdeacon Shila was appointed, chiefly because he was a favourite of
King Qawad. But he did not turn out well, he disposed of church
property to his son and designated his son-in-law Elisha as his
successor, a kind of nepotism likely enough to arise among married
clergy. At Shila's death in 523 a number of bishops elected Narsai, the
Bishop of Hira, as Catholicos and consecrated him at Seleucia. But
Elisha had his partisans and they held a rival consecration at
Ctesiphon close by Seleucia. Thus the Nestorian Church was split, each
section appointing its own bishops and clergy and excommunicating the
opposing party. About 535 Narsai died, but his partisans elected and
consecrated Paul, the archdeacon of Seleucia, and so the schism was
continued. Paul, however, was an old man and died two months after his
consecration, and then the Narsai party elected Maraba, who was
destined to be the reformer of the Nestorian Church and the leader of a
revival of learning which would restore the scholarship of Edessa. It
is worth while sketching this history, petty as some of its details may
appear, as it shows how far the Nestorian community had degenerated and
disintegrated under Persian rule, entirely cut off from
intercourse with the main stream of Christian life and Greek
scholarship.

Ma,faba was a native of the country west of the
Tigris. As to religion, he had been brought up in the Mazdean faith and
after holding the office of arzbed of his town under the
Persian government, had been promoted to the post of assistant
secretary to the hamaragerd of Beth Aramaye. There he met
Christian catechist named Joseph, who had been a pupil in the school of
Nisibis and, as they travelled together he treated him with disdain
because he was a Christian, but was ov ercome by his humility and
readiness to help when they were in a difficult position at a flooded
river. After that they began conversing and discussed matters relating
to their respective religions with the result that Maraba was baptized
a Christian. Then he went to the school at Nisibis and attached himself
to a teacher named Ma'na. When Ma'na was made Bishop of Arzun, Maraba
went with him to his see and was active in preaching to pagans and
heretics. After this he returned to Nisibis and completed his studies
there. Then he set out to travel in the Roman Empire so as to obtain a
better knowledge of the Greek language in which so much material
relating to the Christian religion was written, At Edessa he met a
Syrian named Thomas who gave him instruction in Greek, and together the
two visited the holy sites in Palestine and the hardly less holy
sanctuaries of Shiet (Scetis) in Egypt, the cradle of the monastic
life. Finally he returned to Persia, but was so shocked at the state of
the Nestorian Church and the schism which divided it, that he prepared
to devote himself to a hermit's life like that of the ascetes whom he
had seen in Egypt. But the bishops intervened and forbade him,
insisting that he should undertake teaching, then after a while they
elected him Catholicos, exhorting him to counteract the threatened
encroachment of Monophysite propaganda. His first task was to restore
discipline in the church, then he turned to the promotion of
scholarship and especially to the study of Aristotelian logic. To
further this he founded a school at Seleucia, for there seems no basis
for a legend which claims an earlier foundation for that school, and
this school of Seleucia had a reputable history, but it never became a
serious rival to the older school at Nisibis which remained the central
university of Nestorian Christianity.

Maraba's episcopate lasted from 536 to 552.
Unfortunately his great activity aroused jealousy and he had a quarrel
with King Khusraw I with the result that the king had the Nestorian
church at Seleucia pulled down and sent Maraba into exile to
Adharbaigan (Azerbaijan). As Maraba was a convert from the Mazdean
religion he was of course liable to death, but he was by no means the
only such convert who escaped that penalty. He returned from exile
without permission, was cast into prison, and died there on 29th
February, 552. His body was removed to Hira4 and buried
there, and a monastery was erected over
his grave. This Arab city of Hira was by now a great stronghold of
Nestorianism. He is said -to have attempted a revision of the Peshitta
or Syriac vulgate of the Old Testament, perhaps of the New Testament as
well, but the Nestorians generally clung to the older version to which
they were accustomed. He was the author of commentaries on Genesis,
Psalms, Proverbs, and the epistles of St. Paul, of homilies, hymns,
synodal epistles and canons, these last strongly against the marriage
of bishops and priests. His influence generally was the revival of life
in the Nestorian Church and a return from oriental isolation to a
closer contact with the Greek Church.

In his days there lived two writers, both known
as Abraham of Kashkar. One of these was a student of philosophy and
also a reformer of monasteries. He is said to have written a treatise
on the monastic life which was translated into Persian by his disciple
job the Monk. His namesake was a student of Nisibis, and he also was a
monastic reformer. He preached in Hira and converted many pagan Arabs,
then went to Egypt and Sinai, finishing his life as a herrnit on Mount
Izla. He left a code of monastic rules considerably stricter than those
previously accepted in the Nestorian monasteries.

Theodore of Marw was appointed Bishop of Marw
by Maraba in 540. He was a disciple of Sergius of Rashayn who is
reckoned as a Monophysite (cf. infra), and like his teacher
was a student of Aristotelian logic. In him and the first Abraham of
Kashkar we have evidence of the humanist renaissance which was taking
place in Maraba's days, amongst Monophysites and others as well as in
Nestorian circles, but to which he was the chief agent in directing the
Nestorians. Theodore's brother Gabriel was Bishop of Mormuzd-Ardasher
(Ahwaz), and has also left literary works, but those were entirely
theological, commentaries on scripture, and a treatise against the
Manichaeans and the astrologers.

With the revival of the school of Nisibis the
Nestorians started a system of general education in schools attached to
their churches, and in these children were taught hymns and church
music. The school of Nisibis itself was in the form of a coenobium
where the students were bound by vows of celibacy, continuous
residence, regularity, and diligence. Not all were monks or intending
to be monks, and these vows and monastic discipline bound them only so
long as they attended the school. The head of the school for some time
after Narsai's death was Henana of Adiabene and under him, it
is said, there were 800 students in attendance. But early in the
seventh century the school was vexed bv dissentions caused by those who
wanted reform, restoration of stricter discipline, and the more
definite Nestorianism which had prevailed under Barsauma, for Henana
had taught a modified form of Nestorian doctrine which compromised with
the teaching of the Orthodox Church. His teaching had a considerable
following, but was opposed by many, so the Persian Church generally was
divided and this division was reflected in the school. Some of the
dissatisfied left Nisibis and founded other schools more in conformity
with their ideas in the monasteries of Abraham and Bath 'Abe, but these
never became serious rivals of Nisibis. Under the Catholicos Isho'yahb
(628-643) the desired reforms were introduced into Nisibis and the
schism was healed. The school was flourishing at the time of the Muslim
conquest, but does not seem to have had any direct influence on the
Arabs, probably because it was so definitely theological, though it no
doubt was indirectly responsible for introducing the logic of Aristotle
to the other Nestorian academies at Jundi-Shapur and Seleucia. The
influence which reached the Arabs came mainly through Jundi-Shapur.

The rivalry of Monophysite propaganda not only
prompted a revival of learning amongst the Nestorians, but also
suggested an expansion into the surrounding country where their
Monophysite rivals were winning many converts from the pagan Arabs.
Thus began the missionary enterprise of the Nestorians which before
long spread amongst the Arabs on the south-west, then eastwards across
Central Asia until it reached the Far East.

On the Persian border the chief city of the
Arabs was Hira. Towards the end of the sixth century Nu'man, King of
Hira, was baptized, and this was followed by the conversion of many of
the Arabs. In Hira these Arabs, of the Lakhmid clan, formed the ruling
aristocracy, the bulk of the population was Aramaic Syriac and already
Christian. It appears that those Arabs who accepted Christianity
embraced Nestorian doctrine, accepted the ministrations of
Syriac-speaking Nestorian clergy, and used Syriac as a liturgical
language. As yet there were no books in Arabic, no Arabic version of
the scriptures, and no Arabic liturgy. It appears that Hunayn ibn
Ishaq, who was a native of Hira, had to learn Arabic later in life, the
humbler classes of Hira being Syriac-speaking.

Nestorian missions pushed on towards the south
and reached the Wadi I-Qura', a little to the north-cast of Medina, an
outpost of the Romans garrisoned, not by Roman troops, but by
auxiliaries of the Qoda' tribes. In the time of Muhammad most of those
tribes were Christian, and over the whole wadi were scattered
monasteries, cells, and hermitages. From this as their headquarters
Nestorian monks wandered through Arabia, visiting the great fairs and
preaching to such as were willing to listen to them. Tradition relates
that the Prophet as a young man went to Syria and near Bostra was
recognized as one predestined to be a prophet by a monk named Nestor
(Ibn Sa'd, Itqan, ii, p. 367). Perhaps this may refer to some
contact with a Nestorian monk. The chief Christian stronghold in Arabia
was the city of Najran, but that was mainly Monophysite. What was
called its Ka'ba seems to have been a Christian cathedral.

But Greek culture did not pass through these
early contacts. The cultural contribution of the Nestorians was
definitely through Jundi-Shapur, and the transmission of Greek science
to the Arabs took place when the Arab court was established at the
newly built city of Baghdad close by.

The pontificate of Maraba fell within the reign
of Khusraw I (531-578). Although that king conducted a war against the
Romans, he was a great admirer of Graeco-Roman culture and especially
desired to introduce Greek science into his dominions. It was he who
offered hospitality to the philosophers who were turned adrift when
Justinian closed the schools of Athens and provided for their safety
and welfare when they decided to return to Greece. He desired to have
in Persia a great Greek academy like that at Alexandria, and such an
academy he established in the city of Jundi-Shapur. There the
Alexandrian curriculum was introduced and the same books Of Galen read
and lectured upon as at Alexandria. This was no new departure, for the
same curriculum was followed at Emesa where there also was a school.
Obviously the courses followed at Alexandria were in great repute and
were generally regarded as the model for a secular education.

Greek physicians greatly esteemed certain herbs
and drugs which could only be obtained from India, and so Khusraw sent
an agent, Budh, a Christian periodeutes or rural bishop, to
India to procure drugs. To this Budh is ascribed a work which was
called Alef Migin, which. has been explained as meaning a
commentary on the first book of Aristotle's Physica (Áëöá “ü
ìÝãá), which is not extant, and the Syriac
version of a collection of Indian (Buddhist) tales known as Qalilagwa-Dimnag, but "that Bodh made his Syriac translation from an
Indian (Sanskrit) original, as 'Abdh-isho' asserts, is wholly unlikely;
he no doubt had before him a Pahlavi or Persian version" (Wright, Hist.
Syr. Lit., 124). It is also stated that Khusraw brought a
physician from India to teach medicine in the Indian fashion and
established him at Susa, meaning of course Jundi-Shapur. Nothing is
known of that physician, neither his name nor any details of his
activities. To judge by the appendix on Indian medicine attached to the
"Paradise of Wisdom" (Firdaws al-Hikhma) of 'Ali b. Sahl b.
Rabban at-Tabari (circ. 850), Indian medicine at that
time did not amount to much, it was largely concerned with the exorcism
of evil spirits supposed to be the cause of disease with some theories
of a confused and vague psychology (d Firdawsal-Hikhma, ed.
W. Z. Siddiqi, Berlin, I928). It is possible that for Khusraw I Persian
translations were made of portions of Aristotle and the TimaeusPhaedo, and Gorgias of Plato. Agathias heard of such
translations, but did not believe in their existence.

Under Khusraw I lived Paul the Persian (d.
571) who "is said by Bar Hebraeus to have been distinguished alike in
ecclesiastical and philosophical lore and to have - aspired to the post
of metropolitan bishop of Persia, but being disappointed to have gone
over to the Zoroastrian religion. This may or may not be true...". Bar
Hebraeus speaks of Paul's "admirable introduction to the dialectics (of
Aristotle)", by which he no doubt means the treatise on logic extant in
a single MS. in the Brit. Mus. (Add. 14660, f. 55b) (Wright, Hist.
Syr. Lit., 122-3). This is edited in Land, Anecd. Syriaca, iv,
text 1, 32, trans. 1-30).

There was a Persian academy at Raishahar in the
Arrajana province where work was carried on in medicine, astronomy, and
logic, which suggests another reproduction of the Alexandrian
curriculum (Yaqut, Muajjan ul-buldan, ed. Witstenfeld, ii,
887, trans. Barbier de Maynard, Geographical,Historical
and Literary Dictionary of Persia, 270-1)- Mention is also made of
an academy with an extensive library at Shiz, also in Arrajana (Ibn
Hawqal, ii, 189, 1-2).But very little is known of these
Persian academies or of Persian physicians of pre-Islamic times save
the names given in a scanty catalogue by Mansur Mowafih who lived in
the earlier part of the tenth century.

Syriac study of Aristotle was limited to the
logic and with it were taken the Isagoge of Porphyry and a
compendium of Aristotelian philosophy by Nicolaus of Damascus, who was
also the author of a Botany which was for some time accepted by the
Arabic students as genuinely Aristotelian. The logic was read with the
help of a commentary, at first the Syriac Probus (cf. above), later the
Greek commentary of Ammonius or that of John Philoponus, the Nestorians
preferring the former, the Monophysites using the latter. In these
commentaries a neo-Platonic influence i,., already apparent, and that
influence passed through the Syriac versions and cornmentaries to the
Arabs.

From the time of Maraba onwards there is fairly
continuous evidence of translation from the Greek and of work in
Aristotelian logic. Restricting ourselves for the moment to Nestorian
writers we may note:-

Maraba II (more usually Aba simply, as
he preferred to distinguish himself from his greater namesake),
Catholicos from 741 to 751, often called Aba of Kashkar, as he was
bishop of that city before he was appointed Catholicos. He is said to
have been skilled in philosophy, medicine, and astronomy, which sounds
like the full Alexandrian curriculum, and to have been learned in the
wisdom of the Persians, Greeks, and Hebrews (A. Scher, Chron. de
Seert, P.O. VII). He is credited with having written a commentary
on the Dialectics Of Aristotle. As Catholicos he had a dispute with his
clergy about the management of the school of Seleucia and in this seems
to have fared ill, as he left the city and resided elsewhere for some
years, but finally returned. 'Iraq was conquered by the Arabs in 638,
and Persia in 642. During the whole of the episcopate of Maraba II,
Mesopotamia and Persia were under the rule of the 'Umayyad khalifs of
Damascus, so it is obvious that the Arab conquest did not check or
interfere with the progress of Aristotelian studies which continued in
the Nestorian Church under Muslim rule.

Shem'on of Beth Gamai, in the early
seventh century is said to have translated Eusebius' Ecclesiastical
History into Syriac, but his work is lost.

Henan-isho' II, Catholicos from 686 to
701, is said to have composed a commentary on Aristotle's Analytica.

Reference has already been made to Khusraw I's
efforts to procure Indian drugs. Amongst those brought to Jundi-Shapur
from India was sukkar (Pers. shakar or shakkar, Sanskrit sarkara),
our sugar, unknown to Herodotus
and Ktesias, but known to Nearchus and Onesicritus as "reed honey",
supposed to be made from reeds by bees, the
ìÝëé
êáëáìéíïí of
Theophrastus. Legend relates that Khusraw discovered a store of sugar
amongst the treasures taken in 627 at the capture of Dastigird.
The juice of the sugar cane was purified and made into sugar in India
about A.D. 300, and now the cane began to be cultivated
aboutJundi-Shapur, where there were sugar mills at an early date. At
that time and for long afterwards sugar was used only as medicine, it
was not until much later that it began to replace honey as an ordinary
means of sweetening. In addition to the medical faculty which had a
hospital attached, Jundi-Shapur had also a faculty of astronomy with an
observatory, which again follows the Alexandrian model. The study of
mathematics was subsidiary to astronomy.

At the time of its foundation as a prisoners'
camp Jundi-Shapur had citizens who spoke Greek, others who spoke
Syriac, and there must have been some using Persian, as it was so close
to the royal city of Susa. But in course of time Greek seems to have
been abandoned and academic instruction was given in Syriac, as at
Nisibis and other Nestorian academies, which does not necessarily imply
that the study of Greek was abandoned. The needs of the teaching staff
led to the preparation of Syriac translations of the set books of
Galen, portions of Hippocrates, some of the logical treatises of
Aristotle, the Isagoge, and probably some astronomical and
mathematical works, translations made during the period between the
days of Hibha at Edessa and Hunayn ibn Ishaq at Baghdad. Hunayn speaks
of these translations as bad, but that need mean no more than that they
fell very below the standard of his own work.

Ibn Hawqal (Bib. Geogr. Arab., ii,
109-110)says that the people of Jundi-Shapur used the speech
of Khuzistan which was neither Hebrew, Syriac, or Persian, and the Maahiju'I-fikar refers to the people there having a jargon (ratana)
of their own. This must refer to the colloquial of the street, not
to the language used in the classroom where Syriac was in use, as is
obvious from the fact that Syriac translations were made for the use of
lecturers.

When Baghdad was founded in 762 the khalif and
his court became near neighbours of Jundi-Shapur, and before long court
appointments with generous emoluments began to draw Nestorian
physicians and teachers from the academy, and in this Harun ar-Rashid's
minister Ja'far ibn Barmak was a leading agent, doing all in his power
to introduce Greek science amongst the subjects of the khalif, Arabs,
and Persians. His strongly pro-Greek attitude seems to have been
derived from Marw, where his family had settled after removing from
Balkh, and in his efforts he was ably assisted by Jibra'il of the
Bukhtyishu' family and his successors from Jundi-Shapur. Thus the
Nestorian heritage of Greek scholarship passed from Edessa and Nisibis,
through Jundi-Shapur, to Baghdad.

THE MONOPHYSITES

(1) BEGINNINGS OF MONOPHYSITISM

THE decisions of Ephesus and the
excommunication of Nestorius and his adherents did not bring peace to
the Church. Before long new troubles arose. It is necessary to follow
these at least in outline as they led to further schism in the Eastern
Church, and it was the schismatic bodies which separated from the
Church which were the means of transmitting Greek learning to the
Arabs. When at length the Muslim Arabs invaded the Roman Empire, these
sectarian bodies welcomed them as deliverers and were on friendly terms
with them. The position is not fairly viewed if we class Christians on
one side, Muslims on the other, without further qualification. For some
centuries before the Arab invasions the Christians were split into
hostile sects, active in spreading their propaganda against one
another, in close contact with the Arabs, and so far as the two
dissenting sects were concerned, both actively persecuted by the
Byzantine goverrunent and both in consequence disloyal to it. It is
necessary to appreciate this position to understand the relation
between the Arabs and the Christians.

In 444 Cyril of Alexandria, the great opponent
of Nestorianism, died and was succeeded by Dioscoros, a man of
precisely similar views, but much more violent in temperament and hasty
in expression, an extremer opponent of Nestorianism lacking the tact
which had been Cyril's saving quality. Not long after his accession to
the see of Alexandria trouble began in Constantinople. An aged and
greatly respected archimandrite or abbot of a monastery there, full of
zeal against Nestorianism, committed himself to a new statement of what
he believed to be the orthodox faith, asserting that in Christ there
were two natures, but that both were fused in one, the human nature
absorbed in the Deity. Complaint was made that this was inaccurate and
overstated what Cyril had maintained. It is uncertain who made the
complaint in the first place, whether Theodoret, or Eusebius of
Dorylaeum, or Domnus of Antioch, but it was one of these, all
supporters of Cyril and maintainers of the decrees of Ephesus. Whoever
did make the complaint it was one who like Eutyches himself had been
Cyril's supporter, so the dispute broke out amongst the anti-Nestorians
themselves.

The complaint was made to Flavian, who was then
Patriarch of Constantinople, a man of the Antiochene school but of
moderate views and very reluctant to be drawn into the controversy.
Unwillingly he assembled his local synod in 448 and that synod decided
that Eutyches5, must be deposed and
excommunicated. To Dioscoros, who seems to have inclined to Eutyches'
opinion, or at any rate considered it nearer the truth than the
teaching of Nestorius, this seemed like a revival of Nestorianism, a
betrayal of the decisions of Ephesus and, by favour of the Empress, he
obtained a re-hearing of the complaint before another synod of
Constantinople. Both sides had appealed to popular opinion, and
Eutyches had placarded the streets with statements of his case in which
he alleged that his accusers had falsified the acts of the late synod
of Constantinople so this new council was mainly concerned with that
charge and decided that Eutyches had not made it good. Again the
decision was against him.

But Dioscoros had influence at court and
induced the Emperor Theodosius II to summon a general council for the
extirpation of Nestorianism. The summons of this new council was dated
3oth May, 449, and the council met at Ephesus in the following August.
Dioscoros presided at this council but behaved in a tyrannical and
arrogant manner, relying on court support, and introducing military
guards to enforce his authority. The assembly became a scene of
disorder, well deserving the name of Latrocinium or "synod of
brigands" which Pope Leo applied to it. Eutyches was restored, his
leading accuser Eusebius of Dorylaeum was not even granted a hearing,
and Flavian was deposed. Some of the bishops present ventured to
remonstrate, but Dioscoros called in a band of soldiers and threatened
them into submission. It was at this council that Hibha of Edcssa was
deposed and a pronounced anti-Nestoxian Nonnus appointed in his place.

The proceedings of the "Synod of Brigands"
aroused general disapproval, and those who disapproved most turned to
Rome for support. A great deal of heated controversy followed until
July, 450, when Theodosius died and Pulcheria, the late emperor's
sister, raised her husband Marcian to the throne. This entirely changed
the attitude of the court on which Dioscorus had relied. Marcian
desired peace and was prepared to welcome a working compron-dse which
would put an end to the discord which not only distracted the church
but was the source of much disorder in the capital.

To effect a settlement he summoned another
general council which met at Chalcedon in September, 45i, and passed
very carefully worded decrees which steered between the teachings of
Nestorius and Eutyches (cf. Labbe, iv, 562, etc.), indeed a most
cautious and judicious, but perfectly definite, statement of the
traditional faith of the Church. Such a statement might have been
expected to reconcile all but the extremists. But it was a failure, for
the opposition was incoherent, the opponents were the "e.phaloi, the
headless, without leader, for Eutyches was disowned, and without
programme. A disunited and disordered group of malcontents, in
themselves weak, but very difficult to attack. This was the end of the
first phase of what was afterwards called Monophysitism, a scattered
rather incoherent opposition to anything which tended towards
Nestorianism, but all the opponents divided amongst themselves. The one
point on which they did to some extent agree was that the council of
Chalcedon had rather inclined towards Nestorianism, and this feeling
was strongest in Egypt. The dissidents did agree in disliking the
recent council.

At the close of the council of Chalcedon,
Monophysitism entered on its second phase, still incoherent and divided
but agreed in opposing the decrees of Chalcedon, a merely negative and
Protestant porition, therefore weak.

Theodosius, a monk who had attended the council
and was very dissatisfied at its decisions, went home to Palestine and
published his unfavourable comments, with the -result that there were
riotous outbreaks and bloodshed in Palestine. Dioscoros refused to
recognizethe decrees of the council and was accordingly
deposed, a "Chalcedonian" named Protezius being placed in Ws stead. But
Protezius could only appear in public with a guard of soldiers, riots
broke out in Alexandria and he was compelled to leave the city. Clearly
it was going to be no easy task to enforce the Chalcedonian decrees.
Egypt and a great proportion of the monks in all parts were definitely
determined to resist. And yet they had no leader, nor any clear
statement of principles on which they were agreed. The imperial
government tried to bring pressure to bear, but was disinclined to go
too far. Prospects seemed altogether insecure.

At Marcian's death in 457, a military tribune
Leo of Thrace was elected emperor and proved himself both temperate and
firm. He relaxed Marcian's policy and ceased to apply pressure on those
who resisted the decrees of Chalcedon, so that there was comparative
toleration for the dissidents. Dioscoros had died in banishment at
Gangra in Paphlagonia in 454, and Protezius had fled from Alexandria,
so a new patriarch was appointed, Timothy Aelurus, a monk who had been
banished for resisting Proterius. He was himself banished in 46o, but
for the most part the anti-chalcedonians were unmolested and used the
opportunity to establish themselves firmly.

At Leo's death in 474, the throne passed to his
grandson Zeno, who was even better disposed towards the
antiChalcedonians than his predecessor, and entertained hopes of
winning them back to the Church, a policy which might have been
possible if the dissenters had a responsible head with whom he could
negotiate, or a coherent syllabus of what they wanted. To do this he
issued, in 482, a declaration known as the Henoticon, primarily
addressed to the Egyptian Church but applicable to all who protested
against Chalcedon. This document condemned Nestorius, approved Cyril of
Alexandria, and neither approved nor rejected the decrees of Chalcedon.
It was a distinct move in the anti-Chalcedonian direction and held out
terms of agreement for the objectors. No particular attention was paid
to the Nestorians, who by now were regarded as of no great importance.
At once the weakness of the opposition appeared. Some of the opponents
were ready to accept the Henoticon, others objected to it as
pro-Nestorian. In 476, there had been a revolt of Basiliscus, Leo's
brother-in-law, but this had been suppressed and Zeno restored. During
his brief usurpation Basiliscus had received anti-Chalcedonian support,
so that by this time sectarian strife had begun to weigh in the
politics of the empire which, no doubt, disposed Zeno to make terms
with the schismatics. Opposition to Chalcedon was gathering force. It
was about this time that the Armenian Church cast in its lot with the
disseritients. Zeno went as far as possible in the anti-Chalcedonian
direction short of declaring himself one of the dissenters. Timothy
Aelurus died in 477 and was succeeded by Peter Mogus who accepted the
Henoticon, so Alexandria though still anti-Chalcedonian was prepared to
accept the via media.

Zeno died in 491 and his widow married an
elderly courtier named Anastasius who, on this account, was elevated to
the imperial throne. He reigned twenty-seven years and steadily
followed a cautious policy which aimed at preserving the status
quo. Egypt, by accepting the Henoticon, was partially pacified,
though many there disapproved the terms proposed by Zeno, whilst in
Syria there was a strong dissenting element, and from Syria now came
the first indication of leadership for the schismatics.

In 5 I 2 the see of Antioch was vacant, and a
monk named Severus was chosen as patriarch. He had been educated a
pagan and in his earlier years, had become a lawyer, then was converted
to Christianity and immediately joined the antiChalcedonian faction. It
is often the inclination of converts to go to the extreme, and he was
no-exception. Before long he became a monk and entered a monastery near
Gaza and came in contact with Peter the Iberian, Bishop of Gaza, who
had been one of -the consecrators of Timothy Aelurus. As a
thorough-going anti-Chalcedoriian Severus repudiated the Henoticon and
refused to recognize Peter Mongus as lawful Patriarch of Alexandria.
Then he left Gaza and went into an Egyptian monastery, where exactly is
not known, under an abbot named Nephalius, but after some time was
expelled from, that convent. Why is not clear: was he too extreme in
his views?-or was he a disturber of the peace, as he was afterwards
said to be elsewhere? After his expulsion he went to Alexandria and
there was the cause of several riotous incidents. At the head of a band
of monks he became prominent in destroying several pagan temples, an
illegal proceeding as disused temples were supposed to be under
imperial protection. In these proceedings, apparently, most of the
monks who accompanied him were able to speak Coptic only, not Greek.
Was he also Coptic-speaking?-if so he must have been very familiar with
Egypt and the Egyptians. These proceedings in Alexandria made it
expedient for him to flee to Constantinople where again he was
associated with outbreaks of disorder. It must be borne in mind that
our knowledge of this period of his life is derived almost exclusively
from the accounts left by those who were his uncompromising enemies,
and the age was one when controversy was very bitter and invective
unscrupulous: there was no law of libel and those who have Written
their accounts of Severus were unsparing in their abuse, much of which
must therefore be discounted.

But Constantinople did not prove quite so happy
a place as Severus hoped when, in 511, Macedonius, a loyal
Chalcedonian, was appointed patriarch. The next year, however, Severus
was himself appointed patriarch of Antioch and at once left the
metropolis to assume his see. His first act as bishop was to pronounce
a public anathema on the decrees of Chalcedon, thus declaring himself
one of the extremer schismatics. He then claimed to be in communion
with Timothy of Constantinople and John Niciota (of Nikiu) who had
become patriarch of Alexandria in 507- In this connection he
interchanged synodical letters with Alexandria, and this interchange
has been continued to the present day. As metropolitan of Syria his
hand was heavy on the "Chalcedonians" and he distinguished himself as a
persecutor, but here again our information is derived exclusively from
those who were his enemies. During the seven years he occupied the
patriarchal throne of Antioch, until the death of the Emperor
Anastasius, the anti-Chalcedonian party was in the ascendant, and
Severus was generally recognized as its leader and spokesman. But for
all that not all of that party were at one with him. For the moment we
pause before fortune changed and the dissidents began to suffer
persecution.

One of the methods employed to promote views
adverse to the decisions of Chalcedon was the circulation of spurious
works professing to be the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, the
friend of St. Paul. These works were really produced about 482-500,
probably in Egypt, and are strongly tinctured with neo-Platonic
theories. Whether the writer was one of the party opposed to Chalcedon,
or a writer with sympathies with that party, their bias is obvious.
These pseudo-Dionysian writings consist of four treatises entitled "On
the heavenly hierarchy ", "On the ecclesiastical hierarchy,""On the
names of God,"and "On mystic theology ". In addition to these treatises
there are ten letters, or fragments of letters, with an eleventh
existing only in a Latin version and certainly a forgery of much later
date. No reference to such works occurs before the sixth century when
they were mentioned by Severus of Antioch and Ephraem, who became
patriarch of Antioch in 526. The anti-Chalcedonians appealed to them in
a conference with the Catholics in 531,but Hypatius the
metropolitan of Ephesus asserted "ostendi non posse ista vera ess quae
nullus antiquus memoravit" (Mansi, Concilia,vii, 817).
Subsequently there were many in the eastern church who expressed doubts
as to their authenticity, but Severus and his party generally accepted
them. They were translated into Syriac by Sergius of Rashayn (d. 536)
and seem to have had a good deal of influence in propagating Severus'
teaching in Syria.

Akin to these pseudo-Dionysian documents were
certain works ascribed to Hierotheus, the reputed teacher of Dionysius
the Areopagite. These were not of Greek origin but original
compositions in Syriac by one Stephen bar Sudhaili of Edessa,
a contemporary of Philoxenus. Like the pseiido-Dionysian writings they
were tinged with neo-Platonic ideas and exercised an influence over the
sectaries, an influence which they passed on to the Arabs at a later
date. Stephen was a monk greatly esteemed for his piety. He made a
pilgrimage to Egypt, the home of monasticism, and there came under the
influence of some heretical monks, including some who had revived the
teachings of Origen. On his return to Syria he began teaching the
doctrines he had learned in Egypt and was expelled from his monastery
for doing so. He then went to Jerusalem where he continued teaching his
peculiar ideas, apparently in association with some Ozigenist monks
already settled there. Following Origen he maintained that the fire of
hell is not eternal but merely purgatorial so that ultimately the
population of hell will be redeemed and God will be all in all (1Cor.,
xv, 28). Theodosius of Antioch (887-96) wrote a commentary on
"the Book of Hierotheus" (Brit. Mus. Add., 7189).

We have now reached what we may regard as the
close of the second period of the anti-Chalcedonian movement, the
period during which it enjoyed court favour, because it was hoped that
the dissenters might still be reconciled with the Church, and during
which it showed that it was predominant in Egypt and very strong in
Syria. This period ended with the death of the Emperor Anastasius on
11th July, 518

At the death of Anastasius Justin, a Thracian
peasant, installed himself as emperor. The anti-Chalcedonian party in
Constantinople was led by the eunuch Amantius, who was determined to
set Theocritus on the throne, but entrusted the distribution of
largesse to Justin, and Justin made good use of the influence this gave
him, so that he was able to secure the throne for himself. This new
emperor was a Catholic and orthodox, that is to say he accepted the
decrees of Chalcedon and determined to enforce them. A council was held
in Constantinople on 2oth July, 518, at which it was determined to
reverse the policy of Anastasius and Zeno and to enforce conformity
with Chalcedon. This new policy was endorsed by a synod at Jerusalem on
6th August, and by another at Tyre on I4tb September.

Severus of Antioch was regarded as the leading
opponent of Chalcedon and orders were sent for his arrest, but he
escaped and took refuge in Egypt. At the same time orders were issued
for the deposition of all anti-Chalcedonian bishops, and a number of
these, including Julian of Halicamassus, also took refuge in Egypt.
Egypt was too great a stronghold of the opponents to be dealt with, and
for the while it was left alone. When Severus arrived there Dioscorus
11, who had succeeded John Niciota in 517, was patriarch, but he died
on 24th October, 518. Pope Hormisdas advised Justin to take the
opportunity of restoring orthodoxy in Alexandria and proposed an
Alexandrian deacon named Dioscorus as patriarch, and on this there was
long discussion, but at last Justin made no appointment and the
Alexandrians elected Timothy III.

After Severus had left Antioch an orthodox
candidate Paul was appointed patriarch and he proceeded to enforce
conformity with the decrees of Chalcedon. But there were many there who
refused to conform or to recognize the authority of Paul, and these
seceded from the church so that the anti) using communion Chalcedonians
now became a distinct sect, refusing communion with the Chalcedonians
and declining to accept the ministrations of conforming clergy. This
was a definite step away from the church.

There is some obscurity about Severus'
experiences in Egypt. At first apparently he was a fugitive and assumed
a disguise, living in danger of being arrested and sent back for
punishment. Perhaps his life as recorded in his "Conflicts" by
Athanasius of Antioch, extant in an Ethiopic version edited by
Goodspeed in Patr. Orient. IV, with fragments of a Coptic
version which has passed through an intermediate Arabic one (ed. W. E.
Crum, in Patr. Or., IV, 578-90), rather exaggerates his
sufferings and difficulties: it is the usual tendency of lives of the
saints to dwell much on the sufferings they had to endure. Before long,
apparently, he was welcomed and honoured by Timothy III, and was
generally regarded in Egypt as a great church leader, the patriarch
himself falling into the background. It was Severus who consecrated the
great church of St. Claudius at Siut (Assiout) and delivered there a
sermon still extant in Coptic, Constantine Bishop of Siut at the same
time delivering an oration of welcome from which it is apparent that
Severus was then recognized as the great leader of the faithful. (These
texts in the Pierpont Morgan MSS., xlii (47).)

But the presence of the refugees in Egypt had
its disadvantages. They were not.all in accord and very soon it became
obvious that the anti-Chalcedonians, who now began to be called
Monophysites by the orthodox, were divided amongst themselves. Peter
Mongus and his party had belonged to the more moderate section which
was willing to accept the Henoticon, and that section was predominant
in Alexandria, so Alexandria was left in peace. But Severus was of an
extremer section and moreover was violent in the expression of his
views. Both he and Julian of Halicamassus were writers, and this
brought their teaching before the community generally. Then it appeared
that they differed materially. Severus held that the human body of
Christ was subject to human defects, which was the orthodox view. But
Julian pressed Monophysite doctrine to its logical conclusion and held
that the union of the two natures in Christ made his body free from
every human infirmity, so that he was immortal and impassible from the
union which took place at the incarnation. From this it followed that
the passion caused no pain, it was merely an appearance of phantasia,
a view which led to Julian and his followers being known as
Phantasiasts. To explain his views Julian compiled a "tome", a book of
which he sent a copy to Severus and other copies to various Egyptian
monasteries which embraced his teaching cordially. Then Severus wrote a
refutation of the tome and it became clear that the Monophysites were
divided into at least three discordant sects. In this dispute the
patriarch Timothy took no part. He preferred to remain in the
background and hoped that time would heal the differences and even
reconcile the sectaries with the Catholic Church. With this end in view
he attended a conference at Constantinople in 533, but terms were not
arranged. A second conference was planned for 535, but he died on 7th
February of that year as he was preparing to go to the meeting.

Meanwhile Justin had died and the imperial
throne had passed to Justinian (1st August, 527) whose policy followed
the same lines as that ofjustin, but was more moderate in application.
Justinian was sincerely anxious to restore unity in the Church, but
does not seem to have appreciated the problems which separated the
several sects and parties. His policy was to conciliate, but Severus
refused to be conciliated. The beginning of the new reign was a welcome
relief to the Monophysites. Justinian, it is true, made severe laws for
the punishment of heresy, but tho-.e laws were kept in reserve: he was
too prudent to put them into operation. His wife, the ex-dancer
Theodora, was openly pro-Monophvsite. Perhaps she had her own views, or
perhaps, as many supposed, her attitude was a piece of astute policy on
the part of the emperor who did not want to drive the Monophysites into
open revolt.

At Timothy's death, the Alexandrian synod met
at once to elect a new patriarch, and the court eunuch Calotychius,
acting on instructions from Constantinople, induced them to choose the
deacon Theodosius, a moderate Monophysite and a friend of Severus. On
the same day Theodosius was consecrated and at once proceeded to carry
out the funeral of his predecessor, as was the established practice in
Alexandria. But the people of Alexandria, stirred up by the extreme
julianists, would not have Theodosius and a new meeting of the synod
elected the archdeacon Gaianus, who was induced to accept office with
some difficulty, and he was then consecrated in the private house of
one of the clergy. This was the more remarkable because he had actually
assisted at the installation of Theodosius. Gaianus was soon expelled
by the secular authorities, with much rioting and several murders. But
Theodosius could not venture to appear openly in the city, he had to
remain outside in the monastery of Canopus.

In the course of this same year (535) there was
a new patriarch at Constantinople, Anthimus who, though not a
Monophysite, was very much inclined towards them. By now a number of
deprived Monophysite bishops, including several of the extremer
section, were in Constantinople as guests in Theodora's palace, a thing
which caused great scandal to the orthodox.

About this time another figure came forward.
That was Sergius of Rashayn (c. 536) a celebrated
physician and philosopher, skilled in Greek and the translator into
Syriac of various works on medicine, philosophy, astronomy, and
theology. In the life of the Nestorian Catholicos Maraba there is a
reference to a certain Sergius who is described as an "Arian "with a
tendency to paganism whom Maraba said that he would like to meet for a
discussion and perhaps bring him to the true faith. No doubt this was
the Sergius mentioned. In 535 he went to Antioch to lodge a complaint
against a bishop named Asylus. But Ephraem, the Patriarch of Antioch,
was himself in an uneasy position. He was the orthodox patriarch and
had been prominent as a persecutor of the Monophysites. Now the
Monophysites seemed to be in the ascendant under the protection of
Theodora and he feared the possible restoration of Severus to the see
of Antioch. Observing that Sergius was a man of learning and culture
and familiar with Greek he sent him to Pope Agapetus to enlist his
support in an appeal to the emperor to use stricter measures against
the Monophysites. Sergius found Agapetus on the point of starting for
Constantinople on a different errand, to obtain terms of peace for
Theodahad who wished to be reconciled with Justinian. The Pope and
Sergius travelled to Constantinople together. Agapetus did not succeed
in checking the punitive expedition preparing to deal with Theodahad,
but did remonstrate with the emperor about the way in which the
Monophysites were tolerated. It was not long after this that Sergius
died, though our information about his life and chronology is scanty.
He is generally claimed as a Monophysite, though the translations which
he made from the Greek were used by Nestorians and others as well. The
Syrian historian 'Abdisho' (B.O., iii, 87) claims him as a
Nestorian because several of his works are dedicated to Theodore who
became Nestorian Bishop of Marw in 540. But Theodore of Marw was his
pupil and no doubt it was on this account that he had these works
dedicated to him. Certainly the Nestorian Catholicus Maraba did not
count him as one of his flock. He made his appeal to the orthodox
patriarch of Antioch and acted as his envoy. But there was no one else
to whom he could appeal, the Monophysite patriarch Severus being in
exile. There is, no doubt, a possible solution, that he changed from
one religious cornmunity to another. He was not well esteemed for his
moral character and this, in view of the methods on which religious
controversy was then conducted, rather suggests that he was a convert
from one sect to another. Or, it may be, that he was a man indifferent
to these sectarian differences and having regard only for his own
career. In his earlier days he had attended the school of Alexandria
and used his familiarity with Greek to prepare Syriac translations of
the leading authorities studied there. As cited by Hunayn ibn Ishaq in
his Risala, these translations covered the chief part of the
Alexandrian curriculum, though that had not at that time taken its
final form. Two treatises of Galen were added to that syllabus later, De
sectis and De pulsibus ad Tironem. These he did not
translate, their Syriac versions were made by Ibn Sahda in Muslim
times. Hunayn ibn Ishaq describes them as very poor translations, but
Hunayn's standards were exceptionally high. A good deal of what
survives of Sergius' work is preserved in Brit. Nius. Add., 14658.

The result of Pope Agapetus' intervention was
that measures were taken acainst the Monophysites. A synod was held at
Constantino le and both Anthimus of Constantinople and Timothy of
Alexandria were deposed, whilst Severus was formally anathematized. A
new, patriarch Mennas was appointed to Constantinople. After this
experience Severus retired again to Egypt where he died. The exact date
of his death is not known but is given variously as 538, 539, 542, or
543. He left many works, but of these only Syriac translations, mostly
fragmentary, survive. His great achievement was that he definitely
formulated the Monophysite creed. Decidedly opposed to the decisions of
Chalcedon and equally unwilling to accept the Henoticon, he was careful
not to accept the extremer doctrine of Eutyches or that ofjulian of
Halicamassus, indeed in many respects seems to come nearer the doctrine
of the Catholic Church than would be expected of a Monophysite. It
would seem that, as the controversy first,began with Eutyches, and as
Julian was the noisier controversialist, their extreme views have often
been assumed to represent the Monophysite faith. But Severus taught a
more moderate doctrine. Still he and his followers must be classed as
schismatics, if for no other reason than that they refused to accept
the considered decisions of the Council of Chalcedon.

The death of Severus of Antioch marks the close
of another period of the history of the Monophysites. Now as the result
of Severus' labours they had a definite corpus of doctrine stated in
clear terms, though not as yet accepted by all sections of the
Monophysite community. But they were a community without organization.
Their bishops deprived of their sees were unable to ordain new priests,
and in many parts their adherents had to go without the sacraments
because clergy were lacking and they refused to accept the
ministrations of the "Chalcedonian clergy. The decrees of Chalcedon
were strictly enforced bv Justin, less strictly by Justinian. But the
Empress Theodora was the mainstay of the Monophysites and several of
the deprived bishops were maintained as pensioners in her palace.

The orthodox patriarchs of Antioch, especially
Euphrasius (52i-6) and Ephraem (526-46) were vigorous persecutors of
tl)e Monophysites of Syria. A certain monk of the convent on Mount
Izla, Ya'qub of Tella, commonly known as Ya'qubBurde'ana
or "Ya'qub of the horsecloth" in allusion to the coarse garment he
usually wore, greatly distressed at the troubles of his
fellow-Monophysites, went with a monk of Tella named Sergiiis to the
city of Constantinople to plead their case before Theodora. He stayed
in Constantinople fifteen years protected by Theodora who showed him
much sympathy, but could at the moment do nothing more. Then in 543
Harith ibn abala, king of the Arab tribe of the B. Ghassan which was
subsidized by the Byzantine government to protect the Syrian frontier
and whose chieftain was formally granted the title of "king "by the
imperial government, arrived at court and asked Theodora to arrange for
some bishops to be sent to the Arabs of Syria. At Theodora's request
Theodosius, the exiled Patriarch of Alexandria who was living as a
pensioner in her palace, consecrated a certain Theodore as Bishop of
Bostra, the great mart on the Syrian frontier where merchandise from
India and Arabia brought overland by the trade route from Yemen,
through Mecca and the Hijaz, had to pass the imperial customs, and at
the same time consecrated Ya'qub Burde'ana Bishop of Edessa. This was
merely a titular dignity, as it was understood that he was to serve as
a travelling bishop organizing the Monophysite community in Syria and
Asia Minor, whilst Theodore did a similar office to the Arabs of the
frontier and in Arabia. Of the two, Ya'qub was the more efficient: he
travelled through Syria, Asia Minor, Egypt, and other parts, always in
disguise and xvith a price on his head, everywhere organizing the
Monophysite community as an independent church, consecrating bishops,
ordaining priests, and supervising the administration, so that he is
justly regarded as the real founder of the Monophysite Church, which is
commonly called "Jacobite" after him. In 542, or perhaps in 539, his
friend Sergius had been appointed (Monophysite) Patriarch of Antioch.
There was an orthodox patriarch whose name appears in the official
lists, but Sergius was the one recognized by the Monophysites or
Jacobites. The dignity was merely titular, as no Monophysite bishop was
allowed to live in Antioch. Unfortunately the Monophysite community was
disturbed by many internal dissentions, which Ya'qub was not able to
allay, though they caused him much vexation. In 578 he set out for
Egypt to confer with Damian the Patriarch of Alexandria about these
difficulties, but was taken ill on the way and died in the monastery of
Mar Romanus.

Although the Monophysite Church was not
organized and fully equipped as an independent body before the time of
Ya'qub Burde'ana there had been several brilliant leaders already in
Syria, amongst whom Ya'qub of Sarug and Philoxenos were the most
prominent.

Y'a'qub of Sarug who was periodeutes or
rural bishop of Haura in the diocese of Sarug about 502-3, translated
to the see of Batnan in the same district in 519, and died in 521, has
left many letters, most of them in the manuscripts Brit. Mus. Addit.
14587 and 17I62, but his fame rests chiefly on his poetical
cornpositions, especially his metrical homilies, which had many
imitators.

Philoxenos, in Syriac Aksenaya, was an
alumnus of the school of Edessa where he had been trained under Hibha,
but belonged to the anti-Nestorian minority which held out against
Nestorian teaching. It is said.that it was he who prompted Bishop Cyrus
to persuade Zeno to close the school of Edessa in 489. In 485 he was
consecrated Bishop of Mabbotig (Hieropolis) by Peter the Fuller of
Antioch. He visited Constantinople in 499 and again in 506, each time
suffering a good deal from hostile officials, and in 512 presided over
the synod which elected Severus to the patriarchal see of Antioch. But
at Justin's accession he, with 53 other leading Nionophysite bishops,
was sent into exile. He went to Philippopolis in Thrace, then to Gangra
in Paphlygonia and there he was murdered in 523. He was the author of a
number of homilies in prose, theological treatises, letters, and
several forms of liturgy, but his fame rests chiefly on a new and
revised version of the Syriac New Testament prepared under his
direction by his chorepiscopos Polycarp and finished in 508. Part of
this version was published in England by Pococke in 1630, but an
inaccurate manuscript (now in the Bodleian) was used. A phototype
edition of another manuscript of this version from a codex in private
possession in America was published by Isaac H. Hall in 1888, but the
whole text is not accessible, though several times it has been reported
as discovered. For some time this revised translation was in great
repute, but the Monophysites afterwards produced improved versions
which superseded it.

Mara (d. 527) Bishop of Amid was one of
those expelled from his see by Justin in 5 I 9. He was sent into exile
with Isidore Bishop of Kennesrin to Petra in Arabia. At Justin's death
in 527 he was allowed to go to Alexandria where he spent the remaining
years of his life. In Alexandria he procured a copy of the gospels and
to this text he composed a prologue in Greek. All these instances
illustrate the intellectual activity of the Monophysite community.

A prominent Monophysite leader was John bar
Cursus (d. 9th February, 538), Bishop of Tella (Constantina), who
was consecrated in 5I9, one of his consecrators being Ya'qub of Sarug.
In 521 he was deposed by Justin, but went to Constantinople to plead
his cause. On Ms way home he was arrested by Ephraem the patriarch of
Antioch, a great persecutor of the Monophysites, and cast into prison
in the monastery of the Comes Manasse. There he died in 538. Much of
his life was spent in Monophysite propaganda along the Syrian border
and amongst the neighbouring Arab tribes. He has left a collection of
canons, "Quaestiones," and some other prose books.

Contemporary with him was She'mon Bishop
of Beth Arsham, near Seleucia, who was consecrated under the Catholicus
Babai (498-503), and died in 548. He was a student of the Aristotelian
logic and an indefatigable controversialist who, likejohn bar Cursils,
laboured to extend Monophysite doctrine. He travelled about Persia and
Mesopotamia rallying the Monophysites and holding disputations with
Nestorians, Eutychians, and Manichaeans, earning thereby the title "the
Persian Disputant", one of the few vigorous advocates of Monopbysitism
in Persia. Some time towards 503 he was made bishop of the small see of
Beth Arsham, near Seleucia. He visited the great Nestorian stronghold
of Hira several times and went three times to Constantinople to consult
with the Empress Theodora. During his third visit he died. Of his
letters only two are extant, one a strongly prejudiced account of the
rise and spread of Nestorianism with derisive remarks about many of the
Nestorian leaders; the other on the perseciition of Christians in
Najran in Arabia by thejewish Yemenite king Dhu Nuwas in 523, a
persecution which is supposed to be the subject of Qur'an 84.

Another Monophysite advocate was Isho'
(Joshua) theSolite, originally a monk in the monastery of
Zuqnin, near Amida. He wrote a chronicle of the Persian War which is
our best authority for that period, but shows a Monophysite bias in the
way characters are selected for admiration. This chronicle was written
about 515(ed. Martin, Chronique de Josue le Stylite, 1876,
in Abhand. far d. Kunde d. Morgenlandes, VI, and W. Wright The
Chronicle of 7oshua the S!ylite, cornposed in Syriac, with trs.
and notes. Camb., 1882.)

The hymn writer Shem'on Quqaya (the
Potter), of Gershir, near the monastery of Mar Bessus, composed hymns
as he worked at his potter's wheel. Ya'qub of Sarug heard about him
from the monks, visited him, took away some of his hymns, and
encouraged him in the exercise of his poetic gifts. "A specimen of
these kukayatha has been preserved in the shape of nine hymns on the
nativity of our Lord, Brit. Mus. Add. 14520, a MS. of the eighth or
ninth. Century" (Wright, Hist. Syriac Literature, 79).

One of the prelates who suffered under Justin
was John ofAphtonia, abbot of the monastery of St.
Thomas at Seleucia. He was expelled from his monastery, but founded
another at Kenncsrin (Qen-neshre), in the neighbourhood of Edessa. This
new foundation flourished at the beginning of the seventh century for
teaching Greek and was frequented by many Monophysite scholars. The
Monophysites never developed an academy like the Nestorian foundations
at Nisibis and Jundi-Shapur, but this monastery became quite as much a
centre of scholarship.

John of Ephesus, or of Asia, was a
Monophysite monk who had to flee from his monastery to escape
persecution and took refuge in Constantinople in 535. There he met
Ya'qub Burde'ana. He was in favour with the Emperor Justinian, who
employed him in the imperial service and sent him to Asia Minor to
preach amongst the pagans still to be found round Ephesus. But when
Justinian died he had a troubled life. The date of his death is not
known, but he was alive in 585. His official title was "Bishop of
Ephesus over the heathen". He is of interest chiefly as the author of
an Ecclesiastical History in three parts: the first two parts, each in
six books, cover church history down to the year 572, the third part,
also in six books, carries the history down to 585, covering the period
of which he had personal knowledge and as he had contact with Ya'qub
Burde'ana and other leading Monophysites, this contains material of
great value. Much of the work exists in a fragmentary form, but many of
the fragments are of considerable length. Most of it is contained in
Brit. Mus, Add. 14640, which was edited by Cureton in 1853. Of this an
English translation was published by Payne Smith in 1860, and a German
translation by Schoenfelder in 1862.

John of Ephesus' history is supplemented by the
Greek history of Zacharias Rhetor (or Scholasticus), of the later sixth
century. Unfortunately this work is not extant, but there is a sixth
century compilation in twelve books by an anonymous Monophysite
containing material gathered from various sources, books 3 to 6 giving
the greater part of Zacharias' history, covering the years 450-49I. The
original work seems to have gone down to 518, and the Syriac translator
was writing as late as 569, or even later. This history, surviving only
in part inits Syriac version, is preserved in Brit. Mus. Add.
17202.

Ya'qub Burde'ana never worked in Persia, but
about 559 he consecrated Ahudemmeh as bishop of Tagrit in the highlands
of Adiabene, a district which had steadily resisted Barsauma and the
Nestorians and became the focus of Persian Monophysitism. Ahudemmeh
proved himself a vigorous missioner who did much to spread Monophysite
doctrine. He even made converts of some members of the royal family and
baptized one of the sons of King Khusraw I, giving him the name of
George. But for this he was cast into prison and there executed in 575.

After Ahudemmeh's execution the Monophysites
had no bishop in Persia until 579 when one was appointed in the person
of Qamisho' who is described as "doctor of the new church built for the
edification of the orthodox near the royal palace": these are the words
of Bar Hebraeus (Chron. Eccl., ii, 101)who, as a
Monophysite himself, uses the term "orthodox" to denote members of his
own communion. It is interesting to know that the Monophysites had
built a new church close by the royal palace.

In Adiabene, where Monophysite teaching had its
readiest welcome, the chief centre of Monophysite activity was the
monastery of Mar Mattai, probably in the place now known as Holwan on
Jebel Maqlub, about four hours journey from Mosul, in the area between
the Tigris and the Greater Zab. From the time of Ahudemmeh the
Monophysite metropolitan, though titular bishop of Tagrit, resided in
this monastery, secure in his mountain retreat, until about 628 when
Athanasius surnamed "the Camel Driver" (Monophysite Patriarch of
Antioch), summoned the Persian bishops of his communion to Syria to
discuss measures to be taken to promote the spread of Monophysitism in
the areas where the majozity of Christians had drifted into
Nestorianism. Five bishops attended, amongst them Christopher, the
metropolitan of Tagrit,6 and he, on returning
from Syria, removed his residence from the monastery of Mar Mattai to
the city of Tagrit itself But the honor ary title of metropolitan was
preserved for a bishop resident at Mar Mattai, though it was a mere
compliment, all real authority being in the hands of the Bishop of
Tagrit, now resident in his titular see. In 640 Marutha, a member of
the monastery of Mar Mattai, was raised to the bishopric of Tagrit, and
he and his successors asumed the title of Mafrian "which thenceforward
was used to denote the supreme head of the Monophysite Church in Persia
and Asia generally. By this time the Monophysites had spread well to
the east, and the Patriarch Athanasius was asked to consecrate bishops
for those remoter parts, but this he refused to do, preferring that the
eastern Monophysites should organize themselves under the Mafrian as an
independent body, so Marutha created the see of Herat in Khurasan, and
other oriental sees were added later (Bar Hebraeus, Chron. Eccl., II,
121).

The great centres of Monophysite scholarship
were the monasteries of Mar Mattai Tur 'Abdin on the upper Euphrates
which claimed to be the oldest monastery in Mesopotamia, and Kenneszin
(Qcn-neshre), near Edessa. Several metropolitans were alumni of this
last, Athanasius I (d. 630-1), Athanasius II, of Balad (d. 685), and
others.

The strong Monophysite element in Egypt
attracted a number of Syrian Monophysite monks and scholars to
Alexandria to study, amongst them Paulos of Tella and Thomas of Harqel
in the early years of the seventh century. H. Evelyn White (Monasteries
of the Wadi'n Natrun, ii, 319 sqq.) shows that there was a
colony of Syrian monks in Scetis already ID 576, and probably their
monastery there, from which many valuable Syxiac manuscripts have been
obtained, was founded, or purchased from the Copts, about 7io by a
certain Marutha ibn Habbib. In the sixth to seventh centuries the
Patriarch of Alexandria was living in the Wadi n-NatrUD.

This close contact with Egypt and especially
with Alexandria promoted the spread of Alexandrian teaching amongst the
Syrian and Persian Monophysites. In this connection two leading
characters are of particular importance.

John Philoponug of Alexandria (circ.
568), was for some time a Monophysite, then turned to the doctrine
known as Tritheism, which had been taught first by John Ascusnaghes and
for some time was the acknowledged leader of the sect which followed
that teaching. Before he became a Tritheist he had written a treatise
called Diaitetes or Arbiter at the request of Severus of
Antioch, from which a citation made by St. John of Damascus survives,
but the whole work is extant in a Syriac translation, obviously well
received in the Monophysite community (cf. Brit. Mus. Add. 12171). He
also composed a commentary on Porphyry's Isagoge, and this was
generally adopted amongst the Monophvsites as a recognized textbook. In
568 he published a criticism on a cathetical discourse by John,
Patriarch of Constantinople, but the exact date of his death is not
known.

With this contact with Alexandria must be
associated also the introduction into Syria of the medical Pandects
or Syntagma of the Alexandrian Monophysite physician Aaron, a
compilation which circulated in a Syriac translation amongst
Monophysites and Nestorians and became a favourite manual of medicine.
As such it exercised a good deal of influence on the medical teaching
at Jundi-Shapur and finally on the earlier Arab physicians. This we
conclude from the fact that the later Syriac and older Arab medical
writers quote freely from it.

The Arab conquest of 632 did not check the
religious or intellectual life of either the Nestorian or Monophysite
community. The Arabs exacted tribute, but so had the Persian and Roman
governments. The tribute-paying communities were left free to follow
their own laws, religion, and customs, and to lead their own cultural
life. Intercourse between Egypt, Persia, and Syria was easier than
before, and this favoured intellectual culture which looked to
Alexandria for guidance, though as Alexandria became immersed in
commercial interests that guidance had to be sought in other cities
which became its cultural heirs.

The most distinguished Syriac scholar of this
later period was Severus Sebokht (d. 666-7), Bishop of
Kennesrin. He wrote letters on theological subjects to Basil of Cyprus
and Sergius, abbot of Skiggar, as well as two discourses on St. Gregory
Nazianzen. On Aristotelian logic he composed a treatise on the
syllogisms in the Analytics of Aristotle, a commentary on the
Hermeneutics which was based on the commentary of Paul the Persian, a
letter to Aitilaha of Mosul on certain terms used in the Hermeneutics
(Brit. Mus. Add. 17156), and a letter to the periodeutes Yaunan on the
logic of Aristotle (Camb. Univ. Lib. Add. 2812). In addition to these
works on logic he also wrote on astronomical subjects (Brit. Mus. Add.
14538), and composed a treatise on the astronomical instrument known as
the astrolabe, which has been edited and published by F. Nau (Paris,
1899).In all this he showed himself the product of Alexandrian
science and illustrated the widening scientific interests of the
period. It seems that he took steps towards introducing the Indian
numerals, but this was not carried on by any immediate successor. His
work represents the highest level reached by any Syriac scientist and
this, it will be noted, was associated with Kennesrin.

The Monophysites were diligent and successful inmissionary work, travelling the deserts under the protection of the
Arab tribe of the B. Ghassan. Adiabene and Beth 'Arbaye round about Tur
'Abdin already were Monophysite territory, and so Armenia and the
country about Mount Izla a little north of Nisibis. Another Monophysite
centre was the town of Shissar. In that town was a physician named
Gabriel who was a devoted Monophysite. He was appointed chief
physician,-O Khusraw II and at court conformed to Nestorianism A,hich
was the officially recognized form of Christianity, but reverted to
Monophysitism when he saw that there was no risk of incurring royal
disfavoiir by doing so. He and Queen Shirin, who was his patient, did
all in their power to help the Monophysites and hinder the Nestorians.
It is not altogether edifying to see these rival Christian bodies
engaged in intrigue at a non-Christian court. Gabriel's activities were
so far successful that he was able to prevent the appointment of a new
Catholicus for the Nestorians when the see of Seleucia fell vacant, and
so for some time the Nestorians were without an official head.

Under Justinian the Empress Theodora sent down
Monophysite missionaries to Axum inEthiopia and so secured the
Ethiopians for the Monophysite Church. Ethiopia is said to have- been
evangelized by St. Matthew the Apostle, but the Christian religion did
not penetrate inland where were many barbarous races using different
languages until the days of Constantine, when Frumentius, a Christian
youth wrecked on the shores of the Red Sea, began teaching some of
those people the Christian faith and was afterwards consecrated Bishop
of Axum by St. Athanasius. Such is the account given by Socrates (H.E.,
i, ig), who obtained his information from Rufinus (H.E., i, 9),
who died in 420, so clearly there was an Ethiopian Church well
established in the early fifth century.

In the days of Justinian Axum and its king
occupied an important place in Byzantine politics. The emperor, sorely
pressed by foes on his European and Asiatic frontiers, was no longer
able to spare a fleet to police the Red Sea, and in 522 made a compact
with the king of Axum, who undertook that duty as an ally of the
Byzantine government. Before long the king of Axum began trying to
extend his control over the coast of South Arabia, for which he had a
reasonable pretext. Control of both shores was necessary for putting
down piracy, the people on both shores were akin, and formerly both had
been under one ruler.

The Ethiopians successfully established
themselves on the Tihama, the low lying coast country, but failed in an
attempt to take Mecca. How long their occupation of the Tihama lasted
is not known, but the attempt on Mecca is supposed to have been made
about the time of Muhmmad's birth, which may have taken place in A.D.
570 or thereabouts. The attempt on Mecca failed, but the Ethiopians
were good warriors and many of the princes of South Arabia purchased
Ethiopian slaves as suitable recruits for a body-guard. This example
was followed at Mecca. The Mecfan merchants seem to have been an
unwarlike people, relying much on mercenaries for the defence of their
city and on occasion armed their Ethiopian slaves as a defence force)
but did not trust them very much as in time of peace those slaves were
harshly treated and many ran away. A number of such fugitive slaves
escaped when Muhammad was in Medina and rallied round him there, for he
had already shown his sympathy for them. In his time there were many
such slaves in Mecca, and many Ethiopian craftsmen, a proportion of
whom probably were ex-slaves, all men of humble rank and mostly
Christians and of the Monophysite commuruon. It was commonly said that
it was from these that the Prophet learned the bible stories which
figure so prominently in the Qur'an. Opponents said that "he is taught
by others" (Qur.44, I 2) that "a certain one teaches him....
but the tongue of him whom they suggest is foreign, whilst this is pure
Arabic" (Qur. 16, 105):it was stated that this foreign mentor
was one of those who came hither by violence or fraud (Qur. 25, 5),
which clearly hints that he was an Ethiopian. But these humble
Christians of Mecca were an unorganized community, they had no church
and no bishop (cf. H. Lammens, "Les chretiens la Mecque a la veille de
I'Hegire," in L'Arabie occidentaleavant I'Higire (Beyrouth,
1920, pp. 47-9). Such an origin would explain the looseness and
inaccuracy of the bible stories as they appear in the Qur'an.

The city of Najran in Arabia, not far distant
from Mecca, also was Christian and Monophysite (cf. H. Lammens, "'La
Mecque A la veille de I'Hegire," Beyrouth, I924, pp. 256-7, 289-90). It
is not possible to identify a Monophysite centre for the transmission
of Greek culture to the Arabs with the same assurance as the Nestorian
medium at Jundi-Shapur can be identified, but this contact must not be
ignored. The Monophysite centres of learning, it is true, were
monasteries, not academies like Jundi-Shapur, and so not so intimately
in touch with the Arabs as the Nestorian school, but there was in
contact, as appears from the fact that the mysticism of the
pseudo-Dionysius and Hierotheus was brought to bear on the formation of
Muslim philosophy. But a great deal of pro-Greek influence came to
Baghdad through Marw and, bearing in mind how Marutha extended the
Monophysite episcopate to those eastern parts, it seems probable that a
Monophysite element played its part through Marw, even though there was
also aNestorian bishop there.

INDIAN INFLUENCE-THE SEA ROUTE

(1) THE SEA ROUTE TO INDIA

GREEK influence came to the Arabs not only
directly through Syria and Egypt, but also indirectly from the east by
way of India and thence through Persia. In this rather more involved
line of transmission three distinct phases may be noted.

(i) To passage to India of Greek scientific
teaching by the sea route leading from Alexandria to north-west India
and the fuller development of that knowledge by Indian students, the
results transmitted to the Arabs in the early days of the 'Abbasid
khalifate in the later half of the eighth century. This was especially
associated with the city of Ujjain, the Indian depot of the sea route
from the Red Sea. A sea route also reached south-western India, but
there were no scientific results there.

(ii) The existence in Central Asia of a focus
of Greek influence in Bactria, Sogdiana, and Ferghana, surviving from
the days of Alexander's invasion which, though politically wrecked by
the barbarian invasions shortly before the Christian era, retained a
Greek tradition and was able to spread a certain measure of Hellenism
into India and the Far East. This was an area in which the Persian wars
planted many captives, especially about the city of Marw, and f rom
that city came a pro-Hellenic influence which contributed materially to
the introduction of Greek science into Baghdad.

(iii) The influence of Buddhism which, although
declining in India in the centuries immediately preceding the coming of
Islam, had certainly prepared the ground for intercourse with the
western world, and was directly responsible for the pro. minence of the
Barmakid family, the leading patrons of Hellenism.

At an early date there was intercourse between
India and the great empires of what is now called the Near East. The
first traces of this occurs in inscriptions of the Hittite kings of
Cappadocia in the fourteenth to fifteenth centuries B.C. Those kings
bore Aryan names and worshipped Aryan deities, and apparently were akin
to the Hindus of the Punjab. Blocks of Indian teak were used in the
temple of the Moon at Ur and in Nebuchadnezzar's palace, both of the
sixth century B.C., and apes, Indian elephants, and Bactrian camels
figure on the obelisk of Shalmanesar III (860 B.C.).These may
have been brought by land or carried by sea. The Rig Veda makes
allusions to voyages by sea, and many such allusions occur in Buddhist
literature, both of rather later date but bearing testimony to an old
tradition. Sea trade no doubt came from a port near the mouth of the
Indus and passed to the Persian Gulf, coasting along Gedrosia. The
Persian Gulf was cleared of pirates by Sennacherib in 694 B.C., and it
may be assumed that the presence of pirates implies a sea trade which
increased after the pirates disappeared. In the later seventh century
it is said that the trade of the Persian Gulf was in the hands of the
Phoenicians, who had settled in the marsh lands of the Tigris-Euphrates
(Shatt el-Arab) after their earlier homes had been destroyed by
earthquake (Justin, 18, 3, 2).Strabo refers to Phoenician
temples on the Bahrein Islands near the mouth of the Persian Gulf
(Strabo, 16, 3, 3-5), and remains of such temples have been
found and explored.

The sea route connecting the western world with
India had been known to the Greeks long before the Christian era,
perhaps before the days of Skylax, the friend and neighbour of
Herodotus, certainly before the time of Nearchus and Alexander, as
Nearchus was able to get a guide from Gedrosia who knew the coast as
far as the Gulf of Ormuz (Arrian, Indica, 27, 1),beyond
which the Arabs had a monopoly. The course was to send goods by land to
Seleucia on the Euphrates or to Zeugma, and down the river, but the
route to the Euphrates from Antioch involved a troublesome and often
dangerous crossing of the desert, thence by river to Chai-ax
(Mohammarah) at the mouth of the Euphrates, thence by the Persian Gulf
and along the southern coast of Gedrosia to Patala (Haiderabad in Sind)
on the lower Indus.

The Persian Gulf later was avoided because of
the anarchy in Syria when the Seleucids lost control, and the hostility
of the Parthians, through whose country Indian goods brought to the
Persian Gulf would have to be carried. This gave an opportunity to Arab
traders. Indian merchandise could be landed at one of their ports,
Aden, etc., on the coast of Yemen, or passed to the Egyptian merchants
who traded in the Red Sea. In the days of Agatharchides (circ.
116 B.C.) Egypt obtained Indian goods from Arab merchants at Aden or
Muza, but the Egyptians had only vague notions of the way those goods
were brought from India to Arabia (cf. Periplus, 26).
Agatharchides himself evidently had no direct knowledge of the route
between India and Arabia: there was no direct trade with
India. It was quite the exception that Eudoxus twice made the whole
journey by sea from Egypt to India.

Merchandise landed in Yemen was carried by land
through the Hijaz to Petra. The Ptolemies tried to divert this and get
Indian merchandise through the Red Sea to an Egyptian port, but they
made no effort to intervene in the voyage between India and Arabia. To
develop the Red Sea route Ariston was sent to explore its shores, and
as a result ports were made along the Red Sea coast. Ptolemy
Philadelphus (285-246 B.C.) tried to bring trade to the canal of
Sesostris connecting the Gulf of Suez with the Nile and founded the
port of Arsinoe (Suez) at its outlet to the sea, but this had to be
abandoned owing to the difficult navigation of the Heropoolite Gulf
(Strabo, 16, 4, 6), which caused merchants to prefer Leuke Kome or
Aelana, both communicating with Petra and not with the Nile valley.
Then he founded Berenice, which communicated with Coptos on the Nile by
overland route 258 miles long. In 247 he founded Myos Hormos, i8o miles
north of Berenice, with safer harbour and a shorter journey to Coptos.
But the Red Sea also had its difficulties as it was infested with
pirates until Ptolemy Euergetes (246-221 B.C.) stationed a fleet there
to put down piracy (Diod.,2, 43, 4).

When merchandise was landed at Yemen it was
brought up by land through the Hijaz to Dedan (al-'Ula), the road at
one time perhaps passing through Yathrib (Medina). But in the sixth to
seventh century A.D. it avoided Yathrib and on it was formed the
station of Mecca, possibly after the decline of Petra, which followed
Trajan's incorporation of Nabataea in the Roman Empire. The Prophet
Muhammad was invited to Yathrib to act as leader of the Arabs settled
there and enable them either to plunder the caravans passing up from
Mecca, or perhaps divert the caravan route to Yathrib. In his days the
route certainly did not pass through Yathrib. This route through the
Hijaz was the famous "incense route by which the incense of South
Arabia was carried. The incense, chiefly myrrh, frankincense, cassia,
and spikenard, really was the produce of Arabia, and had been purchased
from the Arabs by the Egyptians, Babylonians, Jews, and others. No
doubt this was a lucrative trade, but it hardly suffices to account for
the exaggerated estimate of the wealth of Arabia given by Greek and
Latin writers. In speaking of that wealth those writers apparently
reckoned all the merchandise procured from Yemen, though in fact a
great deal of this was the produce of India, some of it from
Somaliland, the South Arabian ports being merely depots of transit
where this produce changed hands. As the western world, at least until
well into the first century A.D., received the bulk of it from Arabia,
it was commonly reckoned as Arabian. Akin to this was the fact that
India and Arabia were long confused, so that we cannot be sure in
legends of apostolic missions whether the apostles concerned were
supposed to have gone to India or to Arabia. It was a very old
confusion, based on the idea that tropical africa extended beyond the
southern seas and connected with India. Thus Aeschylus (Supplices,
286) groups India with Ethiopia, and probably Homer (Odyss.,
1,23) referring to "eastern Ethiopians" means Indians and so
implies the same. Older ideas pictured a continent spreading across
from Africa to India, with Arabia as a kind of half-way house on the
northern shore of the lake-like water to the south of Bab el-Mandel,
and it was not until the second century B.C. that exploration showed
this idea to be erroneous, and several centuries more had to pass
before popular opinion admitted its error.

The course between India and South Arabia, the
route already used by Nearchus and by the Arabs and Indians, was known
to exist, but the Greeks knew no details about it beyond the reports
made by Nearchus and Skylax: probably detailed information was
deliberately kept secret by the Arabs who wished to retain their
monopoly of the trade, who invented travellers' tales about monsters
and perils to discourage competition. After reaching South Arabia goods
might be carried overland by the Arabs to Aila or Gaza, or up into
Syria, thus avoiding the Red Sea passage. The Red Sea itself presented
the problem of piracy, a difficulty with which the Ptolemies were
unable to deal permanently. That sea swarmed with pirates and the
coasts were peopled with savages, though these were to some extent
restrained towards the south by the kings of the Homerites (Himyarites)
and Sabaeans. Merchant vessels had to carry a company of archers to
repel Arab pirates (Pliny, H.N., 6, 101),who were
greatly dreaded because they used poisoned arrows (ibid., 176).

This route does not seem to have been developed
by the Romans before the end of the reign of Gaius (A.D. 40-41), then
the custom arose of following the Arabian coast on the outward journey
only as far as Cape Syagrus (Ras Fartek), then venturing on the open
sea across the Indian Ocean to Patala. After that date men who wished
to go south of the Indus took a "shorter and safer "course from Cape
Syagrus directly across the Indian Ocean to Sigerus, the Melizagara of
the Periplus Maris Erithrei, which probably was either jaigash
or Rajapur. The Romans had by this time found that they could avail
themselves of the monsoons, blowing west to east for six months, then
six months in the contrary direction, so that a vessel could drift to
India in the season, and drift back six months later. This meant that a
ship crossing from the mouth of the Red Sea would reach Malabar or some
part of India farther south, and the evidence of Roman coins found in
India shows that many must have done so. About A.D. o it began to be
the practice for those desiring to go across to Malabar after leaving
Arabia Eudaimon (Aden) or Cane (Hisn Ghorab) "by throwing the ship's
head off the wind with a constant pull on the rudder and a shift of the
yard (thus sailing in an arc) go across to Malabar marts in forty days"
(E. H. Warmington, The CommerceBetween the Roman Empire
and India, 1928, p. 46). The return voyage was made by tracing a
southern curve between Malabar and Cane or the coast of Arabia.

The progressive stages of this sea route are
described by Pliny (Nat. Hist., 8, 100 sqq.) in a
passage which has been carefully analysed by Warmington (op. cit.,
45-7). From the account given by Pliny it appears that the shorter
route was made available by the direction of the monsoons, the
south,.vest monsoon enabling a ship to make rapid voyage to India in
the summer, and an equally rapid return if it left Malabar "at the
beginning of the Egyptian month Tybis, our December, or at latest
during the first six days of the Egyptian month Mechir, which fall
within the Ides of January according to our reckoning: thus they
arrange to return home within the year" (Pliny, N.H., 8, 104,
8). In this account Pliny shows a great advance of knowledge since the
time of Strabo. The citation of the Egyptian months emphasizes -the
fact that the Indian trade with the Roman Empire was operated from
Egypt.

The Periplus ascribes the discovery of
the use of the southwest monsoon for the shortening of the journey to
Hippalus, a pilot or merchant, and states that all these routes which
left the coast and crossed the ocean were suggested and planned by him.
He is not mentioned by Pliny, but the name Hippalus is given to the
south-west monsoon. The Periplus is a careful and accurate
book of sailing directions, but in this part must be regarded with
reserve. Did the unknown author relate a popular legend based on the
name given to the wind? In the Itinerarium Augusti and in
Ptolemy Hippalus is used as the name of a sea. If he were a real
person, it is strange that his exploits were so little known to
succeeding generations. No doubt the "discovery" implies the judicious
use of information gathered from mariners and so giving an idea of the
lie of the Indian coast. Nearchus knew that he had to wait for the
north-east monsoon to make the voyage from India homewards several
centuries before the supposed Hippalus (cf. Arrian, -Indica,
21,1).Warmington points out that Hippalus only "observed the
placing of the ports, and the shape of the sea, and appears to me only
to have realized in theory the southern extension of India and the possibiliy
of using for crossing to various points a wind which only his
successors durst fully to use in practice by successive stages"
(Warmington, op. cit., 46-7). Pliny, writing after A.D. 51, says that
only after the final development of the discovery did a regular use of
this southwest monsoon take place "every year", and that only of late
had reliable information about the whole voyage from Egypt to Muziris
and Nelcynda been made available (Pliny, N.H., 101,cf
Warmington, op. cit., 47). The use of the monsoons to shorten the
duration of the passage to and from India was only made known to the
Romans in the days of Claudius, and so Pliny speaks of its having taken
place in his own time (Pliny, N.H., 8, 101,86).

In fact, however, the voyage to India had
become familiar in much earlier times, and seems to have been first
explored and used by the Indian mariners. Eudoxus had sailed to India
in 118-112 B.C.,the route being shown him by a shipwrecked
Indian seaman found near the entrance to the Red Sea (Strabo, 2, 8,
4). Thus the discovery made in the first century A.D.Was
simply that the navigation of the Indian Ocean was then first made
known to the Romans. The name Hippalus was given to the wind, or to the
sea, its origin unknown, and the legend of the first century mariner
was invented to explain the name.

Before the age of Augustus very few Greek or
Roman travellers had ventured beyond the Bab al-Mindeb into the Indian
Ocean, although a good deal of trade had taken place between the
western world and India. "Discoveries of coins are regulated by chance,
and although they indicate commerce, do not afford conclusive evidence
of its extent at any given period.... Hardly any authenticated
Ptolemaic or Seleucid coins have turned up in India, and of Roman
Republican coins only a few have been found in North-West India.... But
of emperors down to Nero very large numbers of gold coins and silver
coins have been found in the Tamil states, and of these a phenomenally
large number have stamps of Augustus or Tiberius" (Warmington, op.
cit., 39). This at least indicates a greatly increased intercourse with
India inthe time of the early emperors,

To a great extent the rarity of Greek and Roman
trade at an earlier period was due to the fact that the Homerites or
Himyarites, the Arabs of the south coast of Arabia who then controlled
the trade, as well as the Axumites, who were Himyaritic colonists
settled on the African side of the Red Sea, desired to keep the Indian
trade a monopoly for themselves and were unwilling to let any strangers
into their secrets. That the Axumites participated in this trade is
clear from the Buddhist monument found at Axum.

Some time about 150-140 B.C. the Mongolian
tribes of Yueh-chi or Sakas invaded North-West India and overran
Bactria. Gradually they settled down and a confederation of Saka states
was formed which became the powerful kingdom of Kushan which lasted
until A.D. 226.Under the third Kushan King Kanishka (A.D.
120-153) this kingdom was at its best and trade with the western world
was active, chiefly by the sea route connecting Alexandria with India,
and at the Indian end of this route, some distance inland, was the
great depot of Ujjain. Kanishka was a convert to Buddhism and many
Buddhist monasteries were founded in his dominions during his reign. On
his earliest coins the inscriptions were in Greek script and in the
Greek language, the sun and moon represented in Greek form as Helios
and Selene. But later in his reign, though the Greek script was
continued, the Old Persian language known as Pahlawi was used and the
deities represented were mixed Greek, Persian, and Hindu, a few showing
the figure of Buddha. In the Kushan capital Purushapura (Peshawar)
there was a great tower with relics of Buddha and a large Buddhist
monastery, and these buildings existed until the eleventh century when
they were destroyed by Mahmud of Ghazna. The fourth Kushan King
Huvishka (153-I85) remained faithful to Buddhism, but his successor
Vasudcva (i85-226) turned to Hinduism and the worship of Siva. From his
reign down to A.D.320 Indian history is almost a blank.

Under the Kushan kings there was a close and
constant intercourse with the Graeco-Roman world, chiefly by the sea
route connecting with Ujjain. Roman coins came to India to pay for
spices and other Indian luxuries in quantities which the Emperor
Tiberius deplored (Tacitus, Ann., 2,33; 3, 53 Dio Cassius, 57,
15), a complaint endorsed by the finds of Romans coins in India. The
Kushan kings ere the only Indian princes who themselves issued a gold
coinage at that time, and in their gold coins copied the Roman model.
Roman gold circulated freely throughout India.

In the third century the Kushan power declined
and was restricted to the Indus valley and Afghanistan. After the time
of Marcus Aurelius (A.D. 161-180) Roman trade with India decayed and
the use of the sea route almost ceased. The accession of the Sasanids
in Persia in 226 put a new and vigorous Persia in place of the effete
and degenerate Parthia, and this new power was unfriendly to the
Romans. Diocletian endeavoured to reorganize the Roman Empire to cope
with new dangers which threatened its existence, but it was not until
324 that Constantine united it under firm control, and only then was
interest in eastern trade revived. But times had changed, and
Constantinople became the rival of Alexandria, though the route from
Constantinople via the River Euphrates and the Persian Gulf was
practicable only when there was peace between Persia and Rome, which
was not always the case. The sea route between India and Alexandria
depended upon the safety of the Red Sea which the Romans continued to
police until the days of Justinian.

In India a new dynasty appeared in A.D. 320,
the Gupta monarchy founded by a raja in Magadha named Chandragupta,
with capital at Pataliputra, like the Kushan state before it this was a
kingdom in the north-west. The second ruler of this dynasty,
Samudragupta (330-380) became paramount over all North-West India. He
had no sympathy with Buddhism, but took a strictly nationalist attitude
and adhered to Brahminism. Efforts were made to revive the Sanskrit
language, and Buddhist forms in architecture became obsolete, whilst
there was a great development in the form and decoration of the Hindu
temples. In art, however, the Greek influence which came through
Gandhara on the north-west frontier, still lingered, and the coinage,
at least, continued to follow Roman models. The third king of this
dynasty, Chandragupta 11 (380-415), extended his conquests over all
Western India, subduing the country of the Sakas (Surashtru, now
Kathiawar) and the Saka princes known as "the Great Satraps". This put
him in possession of Malwa and its capital Ujjain, the inland depot of
the sea-borne trade with the Red Sea, and the adjacent ports Baroch
(Broach), Sopara Cambay, and others. In spite of tle revival of the
Hindu religion, the population of the north-west remained predominantly
Buddhist, free from caste restrictions and without any tabu on travel.

Under the Gupta kings the city of Pataliputra
became the home of scientific studies, especially of astronomy and
mathematics, both of which show a definitely Greek impress in
accordance with contemporary work in the school of Alexandria. The
astronomer Aryabhata (born 476-499) taught here and has left a treatise
on astronomy with a section dealing with mathematics. Varahamihisa
(505-587) compiled a work known as the Pance-Siddhanlika, a
compilation of five standard manuals of astronomy which he abridged.
One of these five treatises belongs to the prc-scientific age and is of
no scientific value, but the other four show the influence of
Alexandrian scholarship: two of them bear the non-Indian names of Romank
and Paulisa, the latter giving a table based on Claudius Ptolemy's
table of chords. These treatises refer to the Yavanas or Greeks as the
great authorities on science. One of the four treatises is thefifth
century anonymous Surya Siddhanta or "knowledge by,, the Sun", which
became a standard manual for Indian astronomers. Brahmagupta (circ. 628)
was an astronomer who lived and worked in Uiiain, where there was an
observatory. He wrote an astronomical manual called the Brahma
Siddhanta in twenty-one chapters, including special sections on
arithmetic (Ganitad'haya) and indeterminate equations (Kutakhadyaka).
This work became known to the Arabs during, or a little before, the
reign of Harun ar-Rashid and formed the basis of the work which
circulated as the Sindhind, a name which represents the Indian
Siddhanta.

Under the Sasanid kings of Persia it had been
the custom to take and record astronomical observations, no doubt in
the first place for astrological purposes, and these records were
regularly published as the Zik-i-shatroayar or "royal tables
". The preparation of those tables was not stopped by the Arab
conquest, nor were they greatly changed in form, the Persian language
was still used and not replaced by Arabic for several centuries, and
even then the dates were given with the old Persian months not the
months of the Arabic Muslim year. It is known that there was an
observatory at Jundi-Shapur, and no doubt observations were taken there
as well as in the Persian observatories, but the whole work was and
remained in Persian hands. Then, apparently, the Arabs wanted to
understand how these observations were taken and recorded d for that
purpose the Sindhind was composed and circulated an amongst
them. It was the first astronomical manual introduced to the Arabs, and
it included not only astronomical-information, but also the
mathematical material necessary for its use, mostly dealing with
spherical trigonometry.

There is a legend, but it is a dubious one,
which puts back the translation of the Sindhind to the reign
of al-Mansur, the founder of Baghdad. This legend relates that the
Arabs conquered Sind (Scind), the area of the lower Indus, in the days
of their expansion after the fall of the Persian monarchy, which has a
good historical basis. This conquest did not result in a complete
occupation of the country, but certain Arab chieftains were settled
there as a kind of military garrison to hold it, and they, very
naturally, became semi-independent. When the 'Abbasid revolution took
place they seized the opportunity to declare themselves independent and
refused to recognize the new dynasty. But al-Mansur would not tolerate
this and sent an armed force to chastise them, and after that
experience they determined to make their submission and sent an embassy
to Baghdad to make terms. With this embassy went an Indian sage named
Kankah, who disclosed to the Arabs the wisdom of the Indians, which
consisted of a summary of astronomy and the mathematics involved. But
Kankah knew no Arabic or Persian, and his speech had to be translated
into Persian by an interpreter, and that into Arabic by a second
interpreter, a process which rendered the final form of his instruction
very involved and obscure. Al-Biruni (d. 1048), the earliest and best
Muslim observer of India and Indian things, knew this story but did not
believe it and considered it an invention designed to explain why the
translation of the Arabic Sindhind was so obscure and unsatisfactory.
History knows of no embassy sent from Sind to al-Mansur. The
probability is that the work was an Arabic translation of a Persian
version of the Siddhanta already in use in Jundi-Shapur. In any case
its contents are not a collection of notes of the discourse of any
sage, but a translation, or rather paraphrase, of the standard Indian
manual, the revised Siddhanta of Brahmagupta. There may be this much
truth in the story, that the Siddhanta passed through two translations
on its way to the Arabs, or possibly three, from Indian to Persian,
possibly thence into Syriac, finally into Arabic.

The mathematics and astronomy which the Arabs
learned from their Indian teachers through a Persian medium were of
Greek origin, passed from Alexandria to North-West India. But it does
not seem that the actual Greek authorities circulated in India, their
teaching wasassimilated and restated by Indian scientists, who
developed and made material contributions to the material which passed
through their hands, and rendered it more flexible by the use of a
decimal notation and a greatly increased use of symbols. This can be
estimated by noting the work of Aryabhata. It appears from al-Biruni
that there were two scientists bearing this name (al-Biruni, India,
ii, 305, 327). The elder of these seems to have died about A.D.
500, the date of the younger one is unknown, nor can we always
distinguish which of the two is meant. The elder Aryabhata worked at
Pataliputra, not at Uiiain. He produced several works, the Gitika,
which was a collection of astronomical tables, the Aryashtasata, which
includes a treatise on arithmetic known as the Ganita, and a treatise
on the geometry of the sphere the necessary basis of astronon-dcal work
known as the Gola. He solved quadratic equations,. already anticipated
by Diophantus who, however, recognized only one root, even where both
are positive, and had been already suggested by Heron. He attempted
indeterminate linear equations, already anticipated by Hypsicles, and
gives one of the earliest attempts at the general solution of such
equations by means of continued fractions. He sums up an arithmetical
series after the pth term in a way which may be expressed-

S = n(a+((n-1)/2 + p))d

He gives rules for determining the area of
plane figures, but often expresses himself very imperfectly, as "the
area produced by a trilateral is the product of the perpendicular which
bisects the base and half the base". He gives the area of the sphere as
ðr2?(ðr2), which makes ð=16/9, perhaps
error for Ahmes' (16/9)2. For the value of he says, "add
four to one hundred, multiply by eight, add sixty-two thousand the
result is the approximate value of the circumference when the diameter
is twenty thousand." This makes
ð=62832/20000 or 3.1418.

In his astronomical tables he includes a brief
table of sines and rules for finding them. In all this there are traces
of Greek teaching, and that appears also in his terminology, as jamitra=äéÜìå“ñïò,
kendra=êÝõ“ñïõ,
and drama=äñáöìÞ.
His work goes farther than that of the Greeks because, like
other Indian scientists, he makes a freer use of algebraic expressions,
which were rather tentatively introduced by diophantus, and employs the
far more convenient Hindu numerals.

Brahmagupta (circ. 628) worked
in the Ujain observatory. He was the author of the Brahma-Siddhanta
"Brahma's revised Siddhanta", which was the basis of the Arabic
Sindhind. This work contains chapters on arithmetic and a treatment of
indeterminate equations. In the arithmetic he deals with integers,
fractions, progression, barter, rule of three, simple interest,
mensuration of plane figures, volumes, and "shadow reckoning" or use of
the sun dial. His rules for areas are often defective: thus for an
equilateral triangle with side 12he gives 5x13= 65; for a
triangle with sides 13, 14, 15 he gives 7x½x (13+15)
which is 96. His formula for the area of a quadrilateral with sides a,
b, c, d, is v((s-a)(s-b)(s-c)(s-d)), where s = ½(a+b+c+d), but
this is true only for cyclic quadrilaterals. His rule is expressed
thus, "Half the sum of the sides set down four times and severally
diminished by the sides, being multiplied together, the square root of the product is the
exact area." He takes ð as 3 for practical purposes, or v10 as its
exact value. He deals with quadratic equations of the type x2+px-q=0,
taking x=v(p2-49-p)/2 which gives one root correctly. More
important is his application of algebra to astronomy in the
Kutakhdyaka, the first instance of such an application being made. He
considers simultaneous equations of the first degree, calling their
unknowns "colours". Considering the solution of ax-by=c, he gives x =
± cq - bt, and y = ±cp-at. This had been already
considered by Aryabhata, who, however, did not solve it, now
Brahmagupta gives a solution. These formulae assume that t = zero or
any integer and that p/9 is the penultimate convergent of 9/6. For the
right-angled triangle he gives two sets of values, 2mn, m2-n2,
m2-n, and vm, ½(m/11-n), ½(m/11+n), in which
he probably draws from Greek sources. For such treatment it is obvious
that Indian mathematics of the period when there was a regular sea
route in use between Alexandria and Ujain were based on Alexandrian
Greek teaching.

As Arab astronomy began with a continuation of
the work inprogress in the Persian observatories, which work
was rendered possible only by the use of Indian mathematics, it seems
fairly certain that the Arabs must have used this Greek science which
came throu h an Indian medium, and was transmitted from the Indian
scientists by Persian astronomers and mathematicians, although the
Persian books which supplied the Arabs with this knowledge are no
longer available. It is said that when tlie Arabs found themselves
unable to understand the Almajest Ja'far ibn Yahya the Barmakid at once
knew the required remedy to be a knowledge of the text of Euclid and
Claudius Ptolemy, material at that time not yet accessible in Arabic.
If this statement can be treated as reliable it suggests that he, a
Persian of Persian education, was familiar with the needed material,
though a Persian version, or for that matter an Indian one, of those
two authorities is unknown. It is not necessary to prove that
translations of the Greek scientists were actually made in Hindu or
Persian, it is sufficiently clear that their teaching was known and
used.

INDIAN INFLUENCE II-THE LAND
ROUTE

(1) BACTRIA

INDIA could be reached by land as well as by
sea. It is known that there was trade with India in Assyrian times, but
it is not clear whether this was by land or sea. Direct evidence of
intercourse between India and Western Asia begins in the Persian period
after Cyrus broke through the hostile tribes which had hitherto barred
the way. Darius, the son of Hystaspes (521-485 B.C.),penetrated
into North-West India and annexed the Indus delta which thereafter was
claimed as a Persian starapy, as appears from the inscriptions of
Persepolis and Naksh-i-Rustam. It was this Darius who in 5I2-510 sent
the Greek pilot Skylax, of Karyanda, in Karia, the neighbour and
probably the friend of Herodotus, to explore the practicability of a
short sea route between the Persian Gulf and-the mouth of the Indus,
which seems to imply familiarity with the Indus country. As soon as he
knew that there was such a route available he sent a fleet into the
Indian Ocean.

Alexander's invasion of India, which was
chiefly intended to secure the easternmost province of Persia after the
Persians had been conquered, took place in 327-325 B.C. Before crossing
the mountain frontier of India he formed a military base which
afterwards became the city of Alasanda or Alexandria Under the
Caucasus, its site probably some 30 miles north of Kabul, one of the
many Alexandrias which he founded. The term "Caucasus "was applied by
the Greeks to what is now known as the Hindu Kush. Alexander died in
323, and at his death his kingdom, for which he left no heir, was
fought over by his generals and in 312was divided between
them. In this division the Asiatic province fell to Seleucus Nicator,
who founded the city of Antioch in Syria and made it his capital,
relegating the extensive provinces east of Syria to the Indus to a
subordinate position. He was more concerned with the rivalries between
the Greek rulers along the Mediterranean coast than the affairs of the
Asiatic hinterland, and left Babylon ancb all that had been the kingdom
of Persia to deputies. Seleucus was succeeded by his son Antiochus
Soter (280-262 B.C.), and he by his son Antiochus Theos (261-246), all
three involved in wars with the Ptolemies of Egypt and so leaving
Persia very much to its own devices. Taking advantage of this the
Parthian tribes of East Persia (Khurasan) drifted away from Seleucid
rule and formed an independent kingdom of Parthia about 250 B.C.This
new Parthian state included a large part of the old kingdom of Persia,
but by no means all that had been ruled by the ancient Achaemenid
kings. About 210 B.C. the Seleucid king Antiochus III "the Great"
formally recognized the third Parthian king Artabanes as an independent
monarch.

These Parthian kings were not of the Persian
royal family of the Achaemenids, but Scythians from Maeotis, though
later a legend was circulated to the effect that their founder Arsaces
had been born in Bactria. As derived from the semi-barbarous tribes of
East Persia the Parthians were despised by the Persians proper and
regarded as inferior species: they were the only tribe of their
locality not mentioned in the sacred books of the Persians, and seem to
have preserved some of the nomadic habits of the tribe from which they
were descended. They made their winter capital at Babylon or Ctesiphon,
this latter a camp city on the Tigris, avoiding the nearby Greek colony
of Seleucia which was left more or less independent under its own Greek
constitution and using the Greek language and religion. The summer
capital was Ecbatana (Hamadan) or Rhagus. There was also a palace at
Hecatompylos in the middle of Parthia, a city which had been enlarged
and partly rebuilt by Seleucus. The sixth Arsacid Mithridates I (d.
138-130 B.C.) greatly enlarged the Parthian kingdom, and after
extending its boundaries from the Tigris to the Indus assumed the title
of "King of Kings", which had been used by the Achaemenid monarchs, and
was represented on his coins as carrying a bow like those old kings,
and adopted the pearl studded tiara which they had worn. The
Achaemenids had been regarded as of semi-divine descent and as
possessing a divine spirit emanating from the god Ahura Mazda, and so
called themselves "sons of god" and this title was now assumed by the
Parthian kings as. ZagAlohin in the inscriptions on
their domestic coins, or èåïðÜ“çñ
on their Greek coins. The Parthian kings were incorporated in the ranks
of the Great Ones"
(Ìåãéó“áíåò)
or higher nobles of the kingdom and in the fraternity of the Magi or
Persian priesthood, all as had been under the ancient Achaemenids, and they
and the higher Parthian officials tried to assimilate themselves as
much as possible to the Persians, copying their dress and manners and
often adopting Persian names.

Alexander had left a number of colonies
scattered over what had been his empire, and these lasted and became
sources of Greek cultural influence. But quite apart from these
colonies Alexander had left a prestige and cultural influence whose
effect endured for many centuries, so that the Asiatics of the Near
East looked with respect on all that was Greek. Greek was not the
official language in Parthia as it was in Egypt, but Greek was very
commonly used on Parthian coins, though under the later kings it was so
debased as hardly to be intelligible. The oldest coin, which is one of
Vologasus I in the time of the Roman Emperor Claudius, gives the full
title of the king in Greek, contenting itself with the king's name
abbreviated to VOL in the native Old Persian or Pahlawi. From about 188
B.C. onwards the royal title includes the term öéëÝëëçí.To some extent the Parthian state had a Helienizing character,
though this Hellenism became more and more orientalized. National
feeling was not developed in its full form, as the ruling dynasty was
generally regarded as racially inferior, tolerated in office only
because it had been successful in liberating the country from an alien
yoke, and supported because it had proved its capacity to secure peace
and independence effectually: when it experienced defeat at the hands
of a foreign power it lost its hold and people looked for a legitimist
king of the original stock descended from the demi-gods.

After the revolt of Arsaces, which led to the
foundation of Parthia, the lands of Bactria, Sogdiana, and,Fergana
drifted out of the control of the Seleucids and a Greek kingdom was
formed in Bactria on the Indian border, though maintaining intercourse
with the Greek world. This state lasted until about 128B.C.,
its population apparently often recruited by fresh Greek colonists. The
city of Antioch Margiana or Marw in Sogdiana was at the end of an
important and well travelled route from Syria and Northern Mesopotamia,
and connected with Bactra, the capital of Bactria, and with Alasanda or
Alexandria "under the Caucasus" on the threshold of India. Through all
its history it remained definitely Greek, and was a centre of Greek
influence until it fell before barbarian invaders. As independent
!Bactria was in revolt against the Seleucid monarchs of Syria, and
their rivals, the Ptolemies of Egypt, maintained an agent at the
Bactrian court. These central Asian states were intimately involved in
the intrigues of the Eastern Mediterranean.

Bactria did not so much revolt as drift away
from Seleucid control because the Seleucids neglected it. About 248
Theodotus, the satrap of Bactria, made himself independent: Justin (41,
4) says that he ordered himself to be called king, but evidence of this
does not appear on his coinage. Certainly his son Diodotus or Theodotus
II did so, and made alliance with Parthia against his suzerain at
Antioch, a reversal of the policy of his father, which was unpopular.
He was slain by Euthydemus, the husband of the daughter of the widowed
queen of Theodotus I, and when the Seleucid Antiochus III blamed him
for slaying Diodotus he defended himself by saying that he was no rebel
but had killed the son of a rebel (Polybius, 11) 34, 2),which
shows that contemporary opinion held that Theodotus had revolted
against his overlord. In 208 Antiochus III "the Great" tried to recover
Bactria for the Seleucid kingdom, but after two years fruitless siege
of Bactra Euthydemus threatened to call in the Sakas (Scythians) and
pointed out the disaster Which would follow the advent of these
barbarians. Antiochus desisted from his attempt and formally recognized
the king of Bactria's independence. In 190Antiochus himself
suffered a severe defeat at the hands of the Roman Scipio Asiaticus and
for some time the threat of Seleucid conquest was averted. In the
following year Euthydemus himself died.

The next Bactrian monarch Demetrius had
ambitions of extending his kingdom in the Indian direction, invaded
India by the Hindu Kush, and in 175 occupied Pataliputra. This was but
the first stage of his advance. He then planned a great invasion of the
Punjab, dividing his forces into three armies, all of which were to
operate in concert. He himself in command of the first army occupied
Gandhara and Taxila. This Gandhara was known as "the second Hellas"
because so thoroughly Greek and the Greek art which flourished there
was destined to spread eastwards and influence the Far East. At the
same time it was a "holy land" of the Buddhists, a sanctity acquired by
the presence of three out of the four great Buddhist stupas there.
Buddha had never visited the country, it had no associations with his
life or ministry, its holy character depended entirely on the presence
of these monuments which enshrined important relics of Buddha or of his
garments. The second army was entrusted to Menander, and this forthwith
seized Pataliputra the capital of Sagala (Sialkot), the chief town of
the Madras, who also were Buddhists. The third army was led by
Demetrius' brother Apollodotus, who proceeded to Barygaza, which may
mean Ujjain. By these operations Demetrius held all North-West India.
But the Seleucids did not abandon their hope of recovering Bactria, and
in 168 Antiochus IV sent an expedition led by his general, Eucratides,
against Demetrius. At the approach of the Seleucid army Demetrius
ordered Menander to abandon Pataliputra and himself oined issue with
Eucratides on the west of the Hindu Kush and in this encounter the
Bactrian' were defeated and Demetrius slain, Eucratides forthwith took
Gandhara and prepared for the invasion of India, but waited for
Antiochus, who planned himself to be the leader of the expedition which
he hoped would be as glorious as that of his great predecessor
Alexander. Before the invasion took place, however, Antiochus died at
Gabae in i63 (Polybius, 31, 9, 11).This unexpected
event left Eucratides to rule conquered Bactria, but that was only for
a brief period; the Pai-thian King Mitliridates intervened and secured
Western Bactria for himself, and not long afterwards (in 159-8)
Eucratides died. But the third invader Menander was still left and he
probably ruled Sagala until 145. Most of his subjects were Buddhists
who favoured the Greeks, whom they regarded as friends and saviours
from the Hindus who persecuted Buddhism. Menander is described as being
very well inclined towards the Buddhists, but there is no proof that he
actually embraced their religion. In the Melindapanha there is a legend
that he did so, and there is a Buddhist dialogue in which one of the
interlocutors is "Melinda", supposed to represent Menander. By this
time, however, Buddhism was no longer expanding in Central Asia, its
future lay rather in the Far East.

Greek Bactzia came to an end between 141and
128, an end brought about by the migration of the Saka
(Scythian) tribes of the Yueh-chi who came from Northern China. They
were, of course, Mongolian tribes, for that is the implication of the
term Saka or Scythian. in China their pastures had been taken from them
by another Mongol tribe, the Hiung-nu, and so they migrated, some going
south where they founded a kingdom in China, others to the west where
they fell upon the tribe of Wu-sun, killed their king, and occupied
their lands. But before long they were overtaken by their old enemies
the Hiung-nu, called in by the defeated Wu-sun and were forced to
continue their march westwards. They next attacked the Sai-wong tribes
who fled south, but about 160B.C. they were themselves
attacked by the Wu-sun, led by the son of their murdered king, and went
farther west. Then for a while they pass out of sight until about 128
when they crossed the jaxartes, then the Oxus, and occupied the
provinces of Bactria and Sogdiana, where they founded a group of Saka
states. Meanwhile the dispossessed Sai-wong had seized the Greek
province of Ferghana and started another Saka principality there. The
coming of these semi-barbarous. tribes completely submerged the
political and social life of the Central Asian Greek kingdoms, at least
for the time being. It did not interfere with the Buddhist religion,
for most of the invading tribes turned Buddhist.

The Yueh-chi had come from China, and the
Chinese government had followed their subsequent vicissitudes and in
128 the Chinese General Chang-kien overtook them in Bactria and made an
alliance between them and China, and for some time afterwards the
Chinese endeavoured to exercise some measure of control over them, but
about 48-35 they ceased to take any interest in them.

Gradually the nomad tribes settled down and
shortly after 25 B.C. Kujala, chief of the Kushan tribe, one of the
group composing the Yueh-chi horde, formed a Saka state in Bactria and
North-West India, a combination of five older states, and this lasted
for two centuries. By that time Bactria or Balkh had become a holy land
of Buddhism and this sanctity was developed under the Kushan kings
until Buddhist pilgrims came from many parts to visit the numerous
topes or relic shrines which abounded there.

For some time Kushan Bactria is of interest
chiefly as a factor in the evolution of organized Buddhism. Then it
became a rising power in North-West India under King Kadphises I.
Already King-hien and other Chinese scholars had visited Bactria when
in A.D.64 copies of Buddhist books wer e sent to the Chinese
Emperor Ming-ti, with the result that in the following year Buddhism
was added to the religions officially recognized in China. Under
Kadphises II (A.D.85-123) commercial intercourse with the
Roman Empire, chiefly by sea rather than the land route through Marw,
was greatly developed, as is noted elsewhere (above).

The third Kushan king, Kanishka (A.D. 123-153),
was a convert to Buddhism. Conditions had so far changed that Kushan
had checked Chinese expansion and many Chinese hostages, including Han,
the son of the Chinese Emperor, were taken to Balkh. For them Kanishka
built a monastery in Kapisa, and in the cold season they were
transferred to a place called Chinapati, whose site is unknown. Under
this king the coinage still followed a Greek model and shows a
degenerate form of Greek inscription. At the Kushan court there were
sculptors, trained chiefly in the school of the frontier province of
Gandhara, who followed Hellenistic models. By this time Buddha was
deified and worshipped, and statues representing him began to appear
and take their place in Buddhist temples in place of the older allusive
symbols. The earliest images were produced in Gandhara and so were
designed on Greek lines, reproductions of Greek images of Apollo.
Gandhara art shows Greek inspiration and carried Greek influence
through the great part of the Buddhist corn munity, so that even in
China and Japan figures of Buddha show a Greek character, especially in
the drapery. True to Greek standards this type of Buddha was simply a
handsome man. But there were some Buddhists who were dissatisfied with
this Greek type of their deity and wanted a more mystical and
spiritualized figure, not a purely human form, however perfect, and so
in Mathura on the great high road between Alexandria "under the
Caucasus "and Pataliputra another type was devised, at first a clumsy
modification of the Gandhara figure, but finally developed as a saintly
and spiritualized character which, however, still betrayed its Greek
origin.

Our main interest here is with the overland
route between the Roman Empire and the Far East. That route led from
the Syrian border to Marw, a city founded by Antiochus I (280-240 B.C.)as a Greek colony with surrounding agricultural settlements, all
predominantly Greek, both city and rural area frequently recruited by
fresh Greek colonists. Under the Parthian kings this became a mart
where Roman and Chinese trade met. At the time of the Arab conquest and
for long afterwards this was a scene of great prosperity, producing
silk and fine cotton when those materials were still rare and costly in
the Roman Empire. Before that conquest the western quarter or rabad had
much increased in population, and in early Arab times the main business
part of the city had removed to this quarter. To Marw the la Persian
King Yazdegird III fled on his defeat and there he was overtaken by the
Arabs in 651and killed at a mill in the village of Raziq close
by. The Christian (Nestorian) bishop took the deceased monarch's body
to Pa-i-Baban and buried it there (Tabari, Ann., i, 2881), an
incident suggesting that the Nestorians formed an important element in
the city. There was a great Nestorian monastery at Masergasan north of
the quarter known later as Sultan-Qal'a, adjoining Rabad (Tabari, Ann.,
ii, 1925). Marw seems to have been an outpost of Hellenism, with a
considerable proportion of Christians, both Nestorians and
Monophysites, inits population, no doubt largely swelled by
the many captives taken by Khusraw II from the Romans and sent far east
for safe custody.

Marw, Bactria, and Sogdiana were all centres of
Hellenism. The Saka conquest of Bactria checked, but did not destroy
this Hellenic element. Meanwhile the western end of the route also had
its vicissitudes. There the chief barrier between the Greek and
oriental world was Parthia which was encroaching upon the Seleucid
dominions and about 150 B.C. absorbed Mesopotamia. But Parthian advance
was checked. Not long after the invasion of Mesopotamia came the Saka
penetration of the eastern provinces. On the other hand the Seleucid
monarchy ceased to be a serious obstacle when in 129 B.C. Antiochus
Sidetes was defeated and slain by the Parthians, though they were not
able to follow up this victory effectively because the Sakas were
already menacing their eastern frontier. This defeat left Syria too
weak to defend herself from foes gathering round and only waiting for
an opportunity to seize her territory. Already Arab tribes were
encroaching on the eastern parts of Syria and a native dynasty at
Edessa had declared its independence in I32, whilst the whole country
was subject to incursions of Arab tribes who before long began preying
oil Parthia as well. Thus Mesopotamia became a neutral territory
covered by minor native states over which neither the Seleucid king at
Antioch nor the King of Parthia could exercise control.

A more formidable foe appeared in 79 B.C. in
Tigranes King of Armenia, a land of hardy highlanders which had
resisted Greek penetration. Tigranes easily conquered Syria, but at
that time the Romans were expanding round the Mediterranean, and before
long Pompey defeated the Armenians, took Syria out of their hands and
made it a Roman province, with the exception of Commagene in the
north-east, which was left as a vassal state under native princes.
Pompey so far stabilized existing conditions as to recognize the
Euphrates as a natural boundary between Parthia and the Roman Empire,
though this did not prevent the Romans accepting Osrohene, with its
capital Edessa, as a client state, although it was on the Parthian side
of the river.

There was a chain of Arab states extending from
the Armenian border to North Arabia, the most important of which was
Palmyra. Augustus, who respected Pompey's recognition of the Euphrates
as the frontier between Persia and the Roman Empire, seems to have
regarded these Arab settlements as a kind of "buffer states" tending to
protect the eastern frontier of the Empire from Parthia.

From the time of Trajan onwards the history of
Western Asia centred in the prolonged duel between Rome and Parthia, or
Persia, which was only Parthia reorganized under a new dynasty, and
this duel had successes varying from time to time between the two
combatants. The hinterland of Syria was never thoroughly Hellenized,
the church councils there were conducted in Greek, but the bishops from
Mesopotamia had to use the services of interpreters (Schwartz, Acta
Concil.Oetum., II, i, 184, 193), and the clergy of Edessa
sent a petition to the Council of Chalcedon in which more than a third
of the signatures were in Syriac (ibid-, 35).

The Sasanid revolution of A.D. 226 placed a new
Persian dynasty on the throne which had been that of Parthia. This
revolution, like most such movements in oriental lands, had a religious
bearing. It not only set on the throne a legitimist claimant who was
accepted as descended from the demi-gods of ancient times, but it led
to a drastic reformation of the religion founded by Zoroaster. The
first Sasanid monarch Ardashir began his reign with a general council
of Mazdean clergy which resolved the many sectarian difficulties
between the various sections into which the Persian community was
divided, and standardized the worship and scriptural canon. In history
Mazdeanism appears generally as a tolerant creed, save in dealing with
dissenters from itself, such as Mani and Mazdek, but it seems to have
passed through a period of active propaganda, of which there are no
details, in the course of which the religion of Zoroaster spread over
the eastern provinces of the kingdom, so that at the coming of Islam
Bactria, Sogdiana, and Ferghana were largely, but by no means entirely,
Mazdean, with a strong Buddhist minority which proved rather a problem
to the Muslim conquerors. Thus the Barmaks, heirs of the hereditary
Buddhist abbots of Nawa Bahar, possessors of great wealth chiefly
derived from the offerings of generations of Buddhist pilgrims, are
represented as being fire-worshippers until their conversion to Islam.

The Barmakids were especially associated with
the city of Marw, whither they had removed from Bactria, and they were
pnme movers in the 'Abbasid revolution. That revolution led to the
dominance of Persian influence and to at least a partial Persianization
of the Arab state, the Muslim religion, and Arabic literature. It was a
ew from Marw, Mashallah ibn Athari (d. 813-820), who was one of the
astrologers called in at the foundation of Baghdad and the author of
works on astronomy and mathematics which show Greek influence. It was
another Jew of Marw Sahl ibn Rabban at-Tabari (c. 8oo) who came
to Baghdad and made the first Arabic translation of Euclid's Elements.

BUDDHISM AS A POSSIBLE MEDIUM

(1) RISE OF BUDDHISM

THE Hindu religion based on the cults of the
Aryan invaders of India but incorporating elements from the primitive
religions surviving amongst the conquered aborigines, was fully
developed long before Alexander's invasion, and had evolved a rigorous
caste system which divided its adherents into sharply defined and
exclusive groups, raising barriers against intercourse with the outside
world. But about the fifth to sixth centuries B.C. there were several
religious movements, especially in North-West India, which tended to
break away from Hindu ritualism all showing a certain mystic tendency
with an ascetic element and a great regard for the sanctity of human
and animal life. One such movement produced the ain religion which
never spread beyond the borders of India, another was the religion of
Buddha, in its earlier period a minor ascetic sect, but afterwards
growing and spreading until it became one of the great world religions.
Both these reli ions had their roots in the already existing Sankhya
system of philosophy commenced by Kapila.

The Jain religion was founded by Mahavira, who
preached in the kingdom of Magadha (South Bihar) in North-West India
probably about 507 B.C.Gautama Buddha gathered a monastic
order around him in the deer park at Sarnath, near Benares and died
about 480 B.C., but his teaching spread in the South East Gangetic
area, Kosala (Oudh), and Magadha. Thus both these religions were
connected with Magadha. The whole country of Magadha was regarded as
unfit for thesacrificial fire, so that no Hindu sacrifice
could be offered there, and it was not a place in which Brahmans of
noble and pure descent could live. This absence of Brahmans encouraged
greater freedom of thought and favoureed therise of newreligious
views, in some measure critical of accepted doctrine (Nalinaksha Dutt, Early
Monastic Buddhism, i, Calcutta, 1941, 140). Neither of these two
religions tried to overturn the existing Hindu caste system, indeed
jains continued to employ Brahinans as domestic chaplains, but in both
the laity obtained a more prominent place and caste divisions gradually
lost a great deal of their significance.

In the fourth century Magadha was, it is said,
ruled by kings of the Nanda dynasty though that dynasty of seven
monarchs is often regarded as legendary, Indian political history
beginning only at the appearance of the Maurya dynasty about 323 B.C.,three or four years after Alexander's invasion, but it is perhaps
rash to ignore entirely the legends of earlier kings. The last Nanda
king is said to have been of low caste and heretical in religion, an
enemy to the two higher castes of Brahmans or priests and Kshatriyas or
warriors, but himself rich and powerful. There is no proof that he was
a Jain or a Buddhist.

About 323-2, in the disorder resulting from
Alexander's invasion, Chandragupta, of the Maurya dynasty, revolted and
deposed the Nanda kings and founded an independent state. He was a man
of military ability and defeated Seleucus Nicator in 305-4 who
attempted to enforce his authority over the eastern provinces of Persia
after recovering Babylon in 312 After his defeat he made a treaty with
Chandragupta, recognizing him as King of Magadha (in 303), and in 301
placed a Greek agent Megasthenes at the Magadha court. Megasthenes
wrote a book descriptive of India and Indian customs, which is known to
us only in citations made by Clement of Alexandria and Strabo.

The next king of Magadha was Bindusara (297-272
B.C.), at whose court Megasthenes was replaced by Daimachos, who
corresponded with Antiochus Soter. Both these two Maurya kings were
regarded by the Hindus as upstarts and unclean, not being of priestly
or warrior caste.

The third king of this dynasty, Asoka, was
converted to Buddhism, which attached no importance to caste, and gave
an enthusiastic support to his adopted religion. He summoned a third
general Buddhist council to be held in the Asokarama inPataliputra,
a village which had been visited by Buddha at onetime, and at
this council eighteen sectarian differences were debated and settled
and what was of greater moment, it was decreed that Buddhism should
embark on missionary enterprise and carry forward the "Law of Piety "to
all the nations of the world. In accordance with this missionaries were
sent out to the south and west, but not to the east. No reference to
this council occurs in the Sanskrit authorities, whilst the third
council mentioned in the Sanskrit books is described as having been
held in Kashmir under Kanishka, this council being ignored in the Pali
records which describe the council of Asoka. By these missionary
efforts the island of Ceylon was converted to Buddhism of the primitive
type, such as is known as Hinyana, and there are surviving records of
that mission and its work. The Ceylon chronicles also refer to
missionary work in the west. They state that a person named
Maharakshitra led a body of missionaries to Yavana, the land of the
Ionians or Greeks, but give no details of their work. At that time the
Seleucid Empire extended to the Hindu Kush and politically of course
all up to that boundary was reckoned as Greek. It was not until the
later years of Asoka that the Parthians threw off the Seleucid yoke,
and it was later still when Bactria withdrew from Greek control and
made itself independent by gradual stages. Probably missionary work
amongst the Greeks simply meant amongst the people of Bactria and
Sogdiana, which were under Greek rule and which afterwards appear as
strongholds of the Buddhist religion.

Asoka endeavoured to spread Buddhism by a
series of edicts in which he set forth the "Law of Piety". In the
publication of these edicts he followed the precedent of the Achaemenid
kings of Persia, who had carved decrees on the rocks at Bahistan and
elsewhere. Some thirty-four edicts of Asoka are known to survive,
fourteen on the rock face, seven on pillars, others in less prominent
places. They are widely scattered from Afghanistan to Mysore. They were
written either in the Prakrit language or in the vernacular of the
locality: one is in three vernaculars, the Magadha dialect one of them.
Though Prakrit is a later development from Sanskrit,7 these are the
earliest Indian documents, for the
Sanskrit Vedas were transmitted orally and not committed to writing
until long after the time of Asoka. The edicts are in the script known
as Karoshti, a modification of the ancient Aramaic writing which had
been introduced into the Punjab by the Persians in the fifth and fourth
centuries B.C.The use of this means of instructing the people
obviously implied that there were those who could read what was
written, and this strongly suggests that Viharas or Buddhist
monasteries were planted out near where the inscriptions were placed so
that monks could read and enlarge upon the teaching they contained. It
can hardly be supposed that a literary education, even of the most
elementary sort, had spread amongst the tribes of Central Asia.

In the Bhabra edict an address to the monastic
order generally, we read of the "conquest by the Law of Piety...won by
his Sacred Majesty inhis own dominions and in all the neighbouring
realms as far as 6,ooo leagues where the Greek king named Antiyaka
(Antiochus II) dwells, and north of that Antiyaka, where dwell the four
kings severally named Turamay (Ptolemy), Antigonus (Gonatus), Maga
(Magas of Cyrene), and Alexander (of Epirus?), and in the south the
(realms of the) Cholas and Pandyas, with Ceylon also: and here, too, in
the king's dominions, amongst the Yonas (Greeks) and Kambojas and
Ptinkas, amongst the Andhras and the Pulindas, everywhere men follow
his Sacred Majesty's instruction in the Law of Piety". On the face of
it this seems to claim missionary enterprise throughout the Greek
world, not necessarily that the princes were converted, but that
generally they received Asoka's mission graciously (Senart in J.A. (1885),
290 sqq.). Magas of Cyrene and Alexander of Epirus died about
258 B.c., so probably were not alive at the date of this decree.

Besides these inscriptions Asoka left cave
temples and rock carvings. There are also early coins and tokens
representing sacred objects of the Buddhist religion, the elephant of
which Buddha's mother dreamed before his birth, the tree under which
his enlightenment took place, the wheel which represents his teaching,
and the burial mound which marked the place where he died. How far
Buddhism really spread into the Greek world is problematical. A
Buddhist gravestone found at Alexandria and a monument definitely
Buddhist in its symbols found at Axum are the Main traces, but both
these places were trading ports closely connected with the Indian
trade, and it would have been likely enough that an Indian merchant or
traveller may have died in either place. The Ceylon chronicles describe
Asoka as having converted a large number of Yonas or Greeks, and as
having sent a Yona named Dhammarakkita as a missionary to Aparanta on
the coast of Gujerat. No doubt Yona simply means an Asiatic who lived
under Greek rule.

According to the Puranas the Maurya dynasty of
Magadha came to an end in i84, when the last king was murdered by a
fanatical Brahman named Sunga Pushyamitra, who seized the throne and
began to persecute the Buddhists. The result of this was that Buddhists
favoured the Greek invaders whenever the Seleucids sent forces to
recover the territory which once had been theirs in India.

The Ceylon Buddhist chronicle, known as the Mahavarnsa,
probably of the fourth century A.D., contains versions of some early
Indian traditions, and speaks of a thero or Buddhist abbot of
Yona (Yavana) who gathered round him 30,000 ascetes in the
neighbourhood of Alasanda, the capital of the Yona country (Mahavamsa,
trs. Turnour,,p. 171). It would be absurd to suppose that Alasanda
denotes Alexandria in Egypt and that there were 30,000 Buddhist monks
there. The Mahavamsa pictures this assembly of ascetes as
taking place at the foundation of the Maha thupo or "great tope" of
Rusawelli by King Dutthagamini in 157 B.C., and gives details which are
of a fictitious character, of stones which moved into place by
themselves, of work done by demons (dewoi), which cannot be
regarded as historical. The thero or abbot was the same Dhammarakkito
who is described as being the Greek Buddhist sent to preach in Gujerat.
There are several Alexandrias, some in Bactria, Sogdiana, and Gandara,
all lands under Greek rule until about I30 B.C., and so -naturally
classed by Indian writers as Yavana "the land of the Greeks The
Alexandria intended in the Mahavamsa may have been Alexandria "under
the Caucasus the "Queen of the Mountains "of the Alexander romance. It
was in Opiane, and Alexander founded it on his way northward by the
road from Seistan to Kabul as he went towards the Hindu Kush "in
radicibus montis" (Curtius, vii, 3, 23). Tarn shows good reason for
believing that this Alexandria and Kapisa formed a double city, such as
was not uncommon in Asia, and the Greek half, Alexandria proper, was on
the west bank of the River Panjshir-Ghorband. Its exact site is not
known as the locality has not yet been excavated. This was an area in
which Buddhism spread in the age of Asoka and it long remained
predominantly Buddhist. There are great Buddhist sculptures at Bamyan
close by.

The chief argument against Buddhist activity in
the Greek world is the very defective knowledge displayed of anything
that can be recognized as Buddhist in extant remains of Greek and Roman
writers save in those few who, like Megasthenes,, had visited India or
had met Indian envoys who came to western lands. Megasthenes was the
Seleucid agent at the court of Magadha from 301 to 297 B.C., but his
work on India is known only in citations by Strabo and Clement of Alexandria. Strabo
mentions Indian priests known as
ÓáñìÜíáò, which
probably represents the Buddhist Sramanas (Strabo, xv, 1, 59). Clement of
Alexandria refers to the
Óáñìáíáßïé
ÂÜê“ñùí undoubtedly Buddhist
priests or ascetes of the Bactrians, and to two classes of
gymnosophists known as
ÓáñìÜíáé and
Âñáöìáíáé
(Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromat., i, 15). In this he is
citing Megasthenes. The latter term doubtless means Brahmans, whilst
the former seems to represent Buddhist Sramanas. From some unknown authority he quotes that
"there are some of the Indians who trusting in the precepts of Buddha
(Âïì““á) because of his exceeding holiness
regard him as (åéò for ùò) a god"
(ibid.). But he misses the identification of these worshippers of
Buddha with the
Óáñìáíáßïé
or Óáñìáíáé
already mentioned. Elsewhere he speaks of certain Indian ascetes known
as "holy men" (Óåìíïé), who are
not to be classed with gymnosophists and have sacred buildings in the
form of pyramids (ibid., 3, 7), and these no doubt Were
Buddhists. Megasthenes' remark that there are Indians who honour Buddha
as a god is interesting as showing that in his days Buddhism was
already passing out of its primitive stage in which Buddha was simply a
religious teacher and was entering the later development in which he
was deified. The,deification of Buddha is usually ascribed to the
spread of the principle of brakti or personal devotion to a
deity, a principle evolved in the Bragavata religion which penetrated
Buddhism about 100 B.C. and led to the representation of Buddha in
human form, the early images strongly influenced by Greek art,
especially in the details of their drapery.

An account of Buddhism was given by the Syrian
writer Bar Daisan, who obtained his information from Indian envoys
passing through Syria on their way to Elagabalus or some other Antonine
emperor. He does not refer to Buddhists
by name, but speaks of
Óáñìáíáßïé
: this is cited by Porphyry (De abstin., iv, 17) and by
Stobaeus (Eccles., iii, 56, 141).

In the embassy sent by a king of Pandya to
Augustus somewhere about A.D. 13, there was an Indian fanatic who
burned himself alive in Athens, an event which made a great stir. The
incident is described by Nicolaus of Damascus, who met the embassy at
Antioch and his account is quoted by Strabo (xvi, 1, 73, 270)
and by Dio Cassius (liv, 9). This fanatic's tomb was still to be seen
in the days of Plutarch and bore the inscription--

ÆÁÑÌÁÍÏ×ÇÃÁÓ
. ÉÍÄÏÓ . ÁÐÏ .
ÂÁÑÃÏÓÇÓ.

The first word possibly represents Sramanokarja
or "teacher of ascetes", which
denotes one of the superior class of Buddhist clergy. Probably the name
ÂÁÑÃÏÓÇÓ means
Barygaza on the Indian coast.

This rather scanty and scattered information
represents what could be learned from Indian embassies comng to the
Roman Empire or from travellers' reports. It gives no indication of
anything which would have been gained from Buddhist propaganda in the
Graeco-Roman world and this, in conjunction with the silence of the
Ceylon chronicles, seems conclusive. The belief that there must have
been effective Buddhist missions as far as Egypt rests on the
assumption that the Christian ascetic life which arose in Egypt
necessarily had a Buddhist origin, but this is not proved: Egyptian
monasticism had an independent origin which can be satisfactorily
traced. The later philosophical schools of Alexandria were fond of
referring to Indian ascetes, but do not show any real familiarity with
them. There remains the possibility that the teaching of the Gnostic
sects which arose in Mesopotamia give signs of Buddhist influence. That
seems likely, but here again there is as yet no definite proof.

About A.D. 45 the Romans obtained greater
familiarity with the phenomenon of the monsoons and as a result there
was a quickening of the intercourse between the western world and the
coast of India, and especially with North-West India, where at the time
was the well ordered and prosperous state of Kushan. This made the
Kushan ports marts for trade with the Roman Empire and through them
great wealth passed into the Indian world. India also benefited
culturally from this intercourse with the west, as appears from the
impress. of Greek thought on Indian philosophy. The rules of the
syllogism in logic, as given by Carake-samhita (circ. A.D. 78)
and Aksopada (circ. A.D. 150) are entirely drawn from Aristotle
(cf M. M. Satis Chandra Vidyabhusana in JRAS. (1918), 469).

Kushan was a wealthy and prosperous state when
its third king, Kanishka, ascended the throne in A.D. 123. A great
warrior he had conquered Kashmir and set up his capital at Purushapura
(Peshawar). He was a convert to the Buddhist religion and used every
opportunity to spread its teaching through his kingdom, which spread
over a great part of North-West India. Under Kushan rule Balkh or
Bactria came to be known as "the little Ra agriha ", second in sanctity
only to the area where Buddha had actually lived and taught. Buddha had
never lived in Balkh, but the country possessed an exceptional number
of lopes or shrines cotaining some portions of his body or
fragments of his clothing. Many of those shrines owed their erection to
King Asoka, and in their design show plain traces of Greek art. At
Kanishka's court were many sculptors who had been trained in the
frontier state of Gandhara, where Greek models still dominated local
art, and that Gandhara-Greek art spread through Chinese Turkestan, then
into China, and ultimately to Japan, carrying with it a form of
sculpture and decoration which clearly shows its Greek origin (cf. A.
Foucher, Beginnings of Buddhist Art, trans. F. W. Thomas,
1917).

It is said that Kanishka, in his enthusiasm for
Buddhism, carried off the Buddhist saint Asvaghosa to his capital. This
holy man was a convert from Hinduism and joined the Buddhist sect, or
rather school, of the Sarvastivada, whose teaching was mainly based on
the doctrine of saving grace by faith. Under Kanishka the Buddhists
held another general council which resulted in the composition or
revision of the authorized commentaries on the three sacred Pitakas.
From the Sarvastivada sect arose the Mahyana doctrine which gradually
replaced the older Buddhist doctrine called Hinyana, Buddhism like
other religions passing through a series of developments. The Buddhist
aim was the path of deliverance from this world of illusion. The
vehicle or yana in the older teaching was asceticism by which
man might with difficulty approach the Buddha: this the reformers
called hinyana "the lesser vehicle" their own teaching was that
by faith a man can enter into union with Buddha, and this they called Mahayana
"the greater vehicle".

Although the revival of the Hindu religion
gradually led to the extinction of Buddhism in India, that religion
long remained a means of promoting international intercourse, being
free from the caste restrictions of Brahmanism. Balkh had become
Buddhist under its Kushan rulers and was visited by foreign pilgrims,
especially from China and Ceylon. About 405-410 the Chinese Buddhist
Fa-hien travelled to Northern India in search of authentic texts of the
Buddhist monastic books and has left us an account of his travels. He
says that between the Indus and jumna there was a series of Buddhist
monasteries and thousands of monks. This was under the Gupta King
Chandragupta II. Fa-hien states that the people of Khotan were all
Buddhists, mostly of the Mahayana school. In Pataliputra there were two
monasteries, one of the Hinyana school, the other of the Mahayana.

After Fa-hien there was fairly regular
intercourse between China and Northern India and Balkh, Chinese
pilgrims visiting lands so rich in relics of Buddha. This did not
continue quite until the Muslim penetration of Persia, for before that
event it seems that there was a revival of the Mazdean religion in
Persia, and some at least of the Buddhist monasteries in Balkh were
transferred from the Buddhists to the followers of Zoroaster.

After the sixth century, during which the Gupta
dynasty was involved in obscurity, the centre of interest shifts to
Thanesar, north of Delhi, where a raja named Harsha (6o6-646-7), after
a series of wars lasting thirty-five years, produced a strong and
well-ordered state. Educated by Brahmans and by Buddhist monks this
monarch, at first a disciple of the Hinyana, then of the Mahayana
school, evolved an eclectic type of Buddhism which he propagated with
great ardour. At that time Buddhism was losing its hold on the Gangetic
plain which was its original home, but it was still powerful in India
though the religion of a minority. Harsha's capital was Kanauj. Chinese
pilgrims still came to Magadha and Balkh, amongst them Hiuen-Tsang, who
sought authentic copies of the Buddhist scriptures and boasts of having
taken home to China 150 relics of Buddha's body or clothing. He has
left a description of hisjoumeys and of the lands through which he
passed, his interest mainly centred in matters connected with the
Buddhist religion. Balkh he calls Po-ho, there he was well received by
the governor, who told him that the land "is called the little
Rajagriha, its sacred relics are exceedingly numerous" (St. Julien, Hist.
de la Vieà, 64) On the west of the capital city was the
great convent of Nawbahar (Skr. nava pihara, "new monastery").
The hereditary abbot of this monastery bore the title of Barmak, and
from these Barmaks was descended the Barmakid family which became so
prominent under the early 'Abbasids. In Muslim times it was supposed
that the monastery of Nawbahar had been Mazdean, but Ibn al-Faqih
(edit. De Goeje, 322) describes its great temple as devoted to idols
and frequented by pilgrims from India, Kabul, and China. If it had been
a Mazdean temple there would have been no idols nor would there have
been pilgrims from lands where fire-worship was unknown: in any case
the accounts left by Chinese visitors put its Buddhist character beyond
dispute. No doubt it was converted into a fire temple during the
Mazdean revival which preceded the Muslim conquest. Tradition
associated Khurasan with the tise of the religion of Zoroaster in
Achaemenid times, and it is quite possible that Mazdeanism was inclined
to treat Bactria and Sogdiana as sacred from that association.

Another distinguished Chinese traveller was
I-tsing, who made his pilgrimage. during A.D.671-695, and for
about eleven years (675-685) was an inmate of the Nalanda monastery. As
Buddhism lost its hold on India it took more and more an international
character and assumed importance as supplying the motive for steady
intercourse between the Far East and Central Asia, connecting China
with Magadha and Balkh in religious interests and so ultimately with
the Hellenic world. In tracing the part played by Buddhism no attention
has been paid to Tibet, although Buddhism is said to have been
introduced there by King Srong-Ban Gampo, the founder of Llhasa, in
629-650, for Tibetan Buddhism really traces from monks of Magadha who
conducted missionary work in Tibet as late as the eleventh century.

In connection with the strongly marked Buddhist
element in Eastern Persia reference should be made to Bamiyan, the
chief city of East Ghur, south of Balkh, where was an important
Buddhist centre. In the thirteenth century Yaqut described two great
images of Buddha there in a large chamber excavated in the mountain
side, images known as Sushk Bud "the red Buddha" and Khing
Bud "the grey Buddha", which still existed in his days. They are
mentioned also by Qazwinu. Bamiyan was destroyed by Changiz Khan.

It seems fairly certain that Buddhism promoted
intercourse between the Graeco-Roman world, especially Alexandria, and
the parts of India comprised in the Gupta Empire, more particularly at
Pataliputra, where Indian scholarship shows distinct traces of Greek
influence.

There is a curious addendum to the history of
Buddhist influence on Islam in the life of the saint Abu Ishaq Ibrahim
ibn Adham, who died between 776 and 783. This saint was a noted ascete,
a type not very common in primitive Islam. He perished in the course of
a naval expedition against Constantinople, which may be taken as an
historical fact. Less convincing, however, are the details of his
earlier life. It is related that he was a prince of Balkh (Bactria) who
was converted to the service of God whilst engaged in hunting and
forthwith abandoned all worldly honours and material possessions in
response to the Divine Call. But careful examination of his biography
shows that it is a Muslim version of the life of Gautama Buddha, and it
seems reasonable to suppose that this came into Muslim hands through
Marw, where there was a strong Buddhist tradition. Possibly the story
was introduced into Muslim circles during the earlier 'Abbasid period.

(1) CONQUEST OF SYRIA

A MAP of the physical features of Western Asia
and North-East Africa shows two important river valleys, one of the
Tigris an. d Euphrates, the other of the Nile, and between them high
ground, broken rather abruptly by the Red Sea. These conditions are due
to geological changes with which we are not at present directly
concerned: we start from a point when the two great river valleys
already existed, with a good deal of barren highland between. Those two
valleys were the homes of two primitive civilizations, which was the
earlier is still not decided. In both cases the rivers concerned
overflowed and flooded the surrounding country regularly every year,
and the particular river-valley culture which grew up there was based
on the artificial control of these regular inundations, draining the
swamps and directing the water so as to fertilize the fields. It is
commonly assumed that in primitive society land was held in common,
each member of the tribe entitled to his share, but not to permanent
ownership of any particular piece. Whether this is universally true is
disputed, probably it does apply so long as tribes are nomadic. But in
the river-valley culture of Mesopotamia and Egypt the productivity of
each field depended a great deal on human labour, irrigating and
draining the land, so that private ownership developed at a fairly
early date and population became stationary. The people of the barren
highlands between the river valleys remained nomads, not recognizing
the rights of private property and in all respects at a much more
primitive stage of social evolution than the settled inhabitants of the
valleys. The life of those nomads was hard and bare, it generally was,
and still is, on the border of starvation; there always was a
temptation for those nomads to raid the fertile and productive
settlements, and when their numbers became too great to be able to make
a living out of the meagre resources of the desert highlands, they
tended to overflow into the valleys. Thus all through ancient history
the kingdoms of Assyria, Babylonia, and Egypt found their nomadic
neighbours a perpetual nuisance, and it was always necessary to provide
for the protection of the frontiers, those frontiers being the precise
level at which it ceased to be practicable to raise the water from the
rivers to irrigate and fertilize the land. Whenever military power so
far decreased as to make the guardianship of the frontiers insufficient
to protect the settled country from Arab raiders, then Arabs came down
to raid the country, then to settle in the rich and productive
territory and reap the benefits of a cultivation at others' expense,
usually subjugating and sometimes enslaving the unwarlike population
already settled there.

Such a raiding and settlement took place
towards the end of the seventh century A.D., when the raiding Arabs
were united in a religious fraternity based on the religion taught by
the Prophet Muhammad. It does not seem that Muhammad himself had any
project of foreign conquest, but such conquest followed because the
people of the area invaded were exhausted by prolonged warfare,
distracted by internal divisions, and disaffected by harsh government,
though some of that harshness was the inevitable result of war
conditions. The success of their expeditions seems to have surprised
the Arabs and encouraged them to undertake the permanent occupation of
the countries they had conquered. They had not the least desire to
cultivate the soil or settle down to agricultural work, their idea was
to establish a military occupation and live on the fruits of the toil
of the native inhabitants. In this they were, no doubt, influenced by
the precedent of the Arabs stationed along the Persian and Roman
frontiers. On both those frontiers it had been found impossible to
dislodge the Arab tribes and both countries tried the same solution,
permitting the tribesmen to settle there and paying them a subsidy on
condition that they guarded the frontier against any other Arabs who
tried to invade the Persian or Roman territories. The Arabs already
settled and paid were greatly envied by the hungry nomads of the
desert, their existence seemed an ideal one, and when they conquered
the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire and the kingdom of Persia
they counted on living a similar kind of life, occupied in hunting and
occasional warfare and supported by the tribute paid them by the
conquered population. Nor were the conquered people unwilling to toil
and pay tribute, as they were to be disarmed and freed from the hated
military service which was the task they most disliked.

It is a debated point whether Muhammad intended
his religion to be a universal one, or for the Arabs alone. Qur'an 34,
27, says, "We have sent thee to mankind at large, to announce and
threaten." But the context shows that this refers to the Prophet
warning men of the approaching end of the world and is itself one of
the signs that the end is near, and is thus interpreted by tradition
(Bukhari, Sahih, i, 93, d. 1:Muslim, Sahih, i,
53, 55). It is necessary for all Arabs to believe in Muhammad if they
are to escape hell (Muslim, i, 54), but it is not stated to be
necessary for non-Arabs to believe, though those who join gods to God,
that is to say, are polytheists, are doomed to hell in any case. As
regards the non-Arab world, the Qur'an seems to contemplate conquest
rather than conversion (Qur., ix, 19-23). One passage in the Qur'an
says, "and one day We will summon up in every people a witness against
them from themselves and We will bring thee (Muhammad) up as a witness
against them: for to thee We have sent down the book which makes all
things clear, a guidance and a mercy, and glad tidings to those who
reconcile themselves with God" (Qur., 18, 91).In another place
the Qur'an says, "thus We have made you a central people that ye may be
witnesses in regard to mankind, and that the Apostle (Muhammad) may be
a witness in regard to you" (Qur., 2, 137). But these passages fall far
short of a definite missionary command to go forth and preach Islam to
all the nations of the earth.

In the later years of his ministry Muhammad
preached his religion to all the Arabs and endeavoured to unite the
tribes in one confederacy. "Fight until there is no more civil discord
and no worship save that of God" (Qur., 2, 189): "fight against those
who oppose you, but do not attack first" (Qur., 2, 186), "kill and
expel them" (Qur., 2, 187): "when the sacred month is over slay the
polytheists, but spare the pagan Arabs who are in league with you"
(Qur., 9, 1-4), but these commands were preparatory to the reduction
and unification of Arabia. They find their best explanation in
Muhammad's own conduct, for he strove hard to draw all the Arabs into
his fold, though tolerating those who were "people of the book", i.e.
Christians or Jews. His attitude was endorsed by the policy of the
early khalifs, men who had been his intimate companions and trained by
him, men who knew his outlook as no others could, and they for some
time insisted on all converts to the religion of Islam also becoming
members of an Arab tribe. Much weight must be attached to the expressed
reluctance of the older Muslims to spread wider into the outside world
lest the multitude of strangers brought in as converts might outnumber
the native Arabs, by their influence changing the character of their
religion and mode of life, apprehensions which subsequent events showed
were justified.

The traditional and legendary biography of
Muhammad attributed to Ibn Ishaq and known to us in an edition
expurgated by Ibn Hisham represents him as sending letters to foreign
monarchs, the King of Persia, the Roman Emperor, and others, inviting
them to become Muslims, but that biography was composed in its earliest
form about a century after Muhammad and contains a great deal which
cannot be regarded as historical.

There can be no question that Muhammad intended
to include all the Arabs in the brotherhood of Islam. Those Arabs were
the inhabitants of Arabia, not quite the artificial Arabia marked on
the atlas, but all the desert highlands of Western Asia, spreading up
into a tongue in Syria. In that northern area, between the two great
monarchies of ParthiaPersia and Rome were the two groups of border
tribes subsidized by the monarchies and to some extent settled and
civilized. Muhammad was very anxious to draw these border tribes into
his fraternity. The Arabs along the Persian frontier had some
grievances against Persia and joined the Muslims, but threw off their
allegiance as soon as Muhammad was dead. In order to gain the Arabs of
the Syrian (Roman) frontier Muhammad sent an envoy to invite them to
embrace Islam, but that envoy was killed at Bosra, a crime against the
Arab tradition of the sacred character of an ambassador. So an army was
sent under Zayd to avenge this. But the border Arabs being in Roman
employ obtained the help of Roman legionaries and defeated the Arabs.
For some time no further action could be taken as the Arabs were busily
engaged elsewhere, but in 632 an army was assembled and preparations
were made to invade Syria. But Muhammad died whilst the expedition was
waiting to set out. Then Abu Bakr was appointed khalif or "successor"
and ordered the army to set out. After forty days it returned laden
with booty, so there was no difficulty in raising new forces. In 634
these forces invaded Syria, where they met small resistance and that
only from an ill-trained local militia. No one as yet supposed that the
Arabs were venturing on more than an ordinary raid, nor do the Arabs
themselves seem to have thought that they had undertaken more than
that.

Certainly these Arabs were not fanatics who
tried to force their religion on the conquered: they preferred them to
remain toilers as before and themselves to live on the produce Of their
labour. Such was the system laid down in the "Constitution of 'Umar",
an apocryphal production of later date, but indicating in general
outline what was the earlier Arab policy. The picture sometimes given
of a host of fanatical Arabs rushing for I ward with a sword in one
hand, a Qur'an in the other, and forcing people to turn Muslims or be
killed is very far from fact. The cynical Arab is not inclined to be a
fanatic. There have been plenty of fanatical Muslims, but they were not
Arabs but converts of other races who were converted to Islam at a
later date. The Arabs did not force the people they conquered to
embrace their religion, they left the conquered population to follow
their own religion, laws, customs, and use their own languages. They
were to be tribute producing and the Arab ideal was to live at case on
the product of their labour.

In Syria, which was of primary importance
because in 66i the khalif with his court and government settled in
Damascus where they remained for more than eighty years, the Arabs
found themselves rulers of an area which had been a Roman province
subject to the fully developed Roman law and with a highly organized
administration. This they took over as it was. Any Roman officials who
wished to remain under Roman rule were given every facility to remove
to some part which still remained Roman. Many did so remove, but many
others were content to live under Arab rule, and of these numbers rose
to high office and dignity in the Muslim state. For the first twenty
years or more the records continued to be kept in Greek, and the civil
service was almost exclusively Christian. There already were a number
of Arab tribes settled along the border, they had been subsidized by
the Byzantine government as defenders of the frontier, and these were
Christians. As old established settlers they had become wealthy
andconsidered themselves socially superior to the Muslim invaders, poor
hungry nomads of the desert, and had no hesitation in asserting
themselves, the Muslim Arabs admitting their claims to aristocratic
status. Some of the ruling dynasty married women of these Christian
tribes, and that was rather resented by the Muslims. Under the khalif
'Abd al-Malik (685-705) there was a good deal of jealousy because the
Christians had a monopoly of all the posts in the civil administration,
and the khalif tried to employ Arabs in their place. But the change was
not successful, the Arabs did not understand the details of business
and the Christian officials had to be restored. This is easy to
understand because the oriental practice is, not to draw up accounts so
that an outside auditor can understand and check them, but to keep them
in such a way that nobody but the established officials can possibly
understand them: it is done deliberately so that the established
officials may keep the business in their own hands and secure a
permanent monopoly. The most that 'Abd al-Malik could do was to get the
records kept in Arabic instead of Greek, and to use Arabic on the
coinage. Bishop Arculf of Gaul made a tour of the Holy Land about 700
and speaks with much appreciation of the hospitable way he was received
by the Muslim rulers, the freedom with which he was allowed to travel
about, and the generally friendly attitude of the Arabs and their
rulers. Until the days of the Crusades Syria and Egypt were practically
Christian lands under the rule of the Muslim Arabs, their rule mainly
confined to the collection of taxes, and that they did very thoroughly.

In the earlier period of the 'Umayyad khalifate
at Damascus there was even a fashionable tendency to deride Islamic
ways and customs. This is well illustrated by the poetry of Abu Malik
Ghiyath ibn Salt ibn Tariqa al-Akhtal, who was born at Hira about 640
and died about 710. He belonged to the Taghlib clan of the jusham ibn
Bakr tribe and lived and died a Monophysite Christian. His poems refer
to St. Sergius, the Holy Cross, to monks, and he uses Christian oaths,
though there are very few direct references to Christianity in his
Diwan. He refused to change his religion (Diwan, p. 154), and derided
those whom he described as becoming Muslims by pressure of hunger
rather than by conviction (ibid., 315). He composed poems in honour.of
Yazid, the son of the khalif Mu'awiya, his brother 'Abdallah, and
others of the royal family. He was formally recognized as poet laureate
by 'Abd al-Malik, whom he celebrated as well as his relations and
derided their enemies, a real courtier. In his poems there appears
evidence of the survival of ancient pagan Arab usages in the days of
the 'Umayyads, and some striking instances of the tolerant attitude of
that dynasty. Many of his verses contain biting sarcasms on -Islam, and
such passages have prevented many Muslims from full appreciation of his
poetic merits, but in his day he and his rival jarir were the leading
poets of the Arabs. He particularly expresses his contempt for all
those who abandoned their ancestral religion, Christian or pagan, to
conform with that of the reigning monarch. The most admired passage in
his works is his panegyric of the 'Umayyads (Diwan, 98-112).In
spite of his contemptuous attitude towards Islam this poet was
patronized by the khalif 'Abd al-Malik, though not greatly favoured by
his successor Walid I. He probably died before the end of Walid's
reign, though Ibn 'Abd Rabbihi prolongs his life to the reign of 'Umar
II. Probably his death should be dated about 710.

A loose tone about religion prevailed at the
'Umayyad court, which did not find favour with the stricter Muslims,
and was one of the causes of the anti-'Umayyad feeling which grew in
intensity until it led to the downfall of the dynasty. The old tribal
rivalries of pre-Muslim days still influenced the Arabs, and there was
a deep-rooted antagonism between the worldly tone of Damascus, and the
cities of Mecca and Medina, and the more orthodox attitude of those who
regarded themselves as Muslims in the first place, and Arabs only in a
secondary place. The only exception to this in the 'Umayyad khalifs was
Walid I (705-715), who was a really religious man and put the interests
of Islam before political or racial considerations. At the other
extreme Yazid I. (680-683) is still cursed by the orthodox as an enemy
of religion. It was anarmy sent by him which engaged in the
battle of Kerbela (10thOctober, 680), and was responsible for
the tragic death of al-Husayn, the surviving son of 'Ali the Prophet's
son-in-law. And it was an army sent by him which besieged the holy city
of Mecca and (accidentally) burned the sanctuary of the Ka'ba
(November, 683).

Damascus, the official capital of Syria, was a
partly Greek city, not so thoroughly Hellenized as Antioch. It was the
seat of Christian bishops who ranked next after the patriarchs of
Antioch in the ecclesiastical hierarchy of Syria: it possessed a school
which, though not equal to those of Alexandria and Antioch, yet had
attained considerable eminence by the time of the Arab conquest, and
retained its good repute after that event. Amongst its alumni were the
theologian Sophronius, who became bishop of Jerusalem (634-8), and
Andrew of Crete (circ. 650-720), who studied there after the
Arab conquest, became a monk in Jerusalem, and finally bishop of Crete.
The Arabic historians say that at the time of the conquest the
financial agent of the Roman government in the city was Sergius
(Sarjun) who was responsible for making terms with the invaders, on
which account Eutychius calls him a traitor. But the citizens, deserted
by the government, had no choice in the matter and it is probable that
everyone supposed that the Arab attack was no more than a raid on a
large scale and that after plundering the town the Arabs would go back
again to the desert. The governor of such a city normally was a
financial agent whose duty it was to raise the imperial taxes and
commonly bore the honora ry title of Patricius which had been granted
to all superior officials by Constantine. He had been appointed by the
Emperor Heraclius, but like many other officials continued in office
after the Arab conquest under Mu'awiya, when he was governor of the
province, and remained when Mu'awiya became khalif. Finally he acted as
minister of finance for the whole Islamic state and paymaster-in-chief
of the Arab army. Yet he remained a Christian, and long after becoming
rrunister of finance built a Christian church, His son was treasurer
under 'Abd al-Malik, and his grandson was chief minister under some of
the later khalifs. The office and title of wazir had not yet come into
existence.

It is said that the second member of this
family purchased a sl ave named Cosmas, a monk who had been captured by
the Arabs during a raid on Italy, and employed him as tutor to his son
John. When Cosmas had tauhgt him all that he could he begged permission
to retire to a monastery, and on obtaining leave he went to the Laura
of St. Sabas, near Jerusalem. The author of this John's biography was
John of Jerusalem who lived in the tenth century, a good while after
the events he records, and Eke many hagiographers of the time used
freely matter which would now be regarded as legendary, but the main
lines of John's life seem to be reliable. It appears that this John was
the son of Sergius, afterwards known as St. John of Damascus, son of an
important official in the Arab state, was himself attached to the court
and acted as "chief adviser" to the khalif, probably Hisham (724-743).
After serving the khalif for some years John asked leave to resign, and
followed his tutor to the Laura of St. Sabas where, after a period of
rigorous discipline, he was ordained to the priesthood some time before
735. He died before 743. To him is due the earliest treatise on the
controversy between Christianity and Islam, the "Disputatio Christiani
et Saraceni" which is printed in Migne's Patrologia Graeca,xcvi,
1335-1363. This work shows that there was great freedom of religious
discussion in eighth-century Damascus, and that Christians were
permitted to criticize the established religion very freely. The text
says, "When the Saracen says.... You reply...." John gives proof of a
good knowledge of the Qur'an and familiarity with Muslim ritual and
doctrine. The identification of St. John of Damascus with the son of
Sarjun ibn Mansur was first made by William of Tripoli.

Theodorus Abucara (d. 826) was St. John's
pupil, and he also left works on the controversy with Islam. Obviously
there was unrestrained intercourse between the two religions and no
reluctance was felt about discussing religious differences quite
freely. It may reasonably be supposed that such intercourse introduced
the Muslims of Damascus to a general knowledge of Christian theology
and philosophy, and within the next following generations ideas and
problems suggested by Greek philosophy appear leavening Muslim thought.

A parallel infiltration of Greek thought took
place in jurisprudence so that the earliest speculations of the Muslim
jurists are tinctured by theories gathered from the Roman law which
itself contains elements gathered from Stoic philosophy, and thus Greek
philosophical teaching was passed on to the Arabs through a legal
medium. Roman law at the time of the Arab conquest circulated in the
eastern provinces in Greek, and slightly modified by local conditions,
but it contained the Stoic principles which the lawyers of Rome had
drawn from Greek sources. Prominent among these philosophical-legal
theories was the doctrine that man has an innate sense of what is just
and right, of what the Stoics called the Law of Nature. This was also
assumed by the early Muslimjurists who appealed to "opinion" to
supplement and even to supplant the written law when cases arose for
which no provision had been made. Here, however, it is to be noted that
the earlier indications of this Stoic doctrine appear, not in Syria
where the Roman law was established, but in 'Iraq, and especially at
Basra. That the Arabs were first brought into contact with Roman law in
Syria and Egypt is certain. They had conquered those provinces and
found there a complicated system of land tenure, contractual law, and
commercial legislation dealing with things of which the simple nomads
of the desert had no previous knowledge. Much of this they adopted,
indeed such adoption was inevitable, and it hencef orth was
incorporated in Muslim law, It is true that there are some branches of
law which had already been incorporated in Jewish, law, and those may
have come through a Jewish medium to the Arabs, but it is more probable
that most of the law dealing with land tenure, contract, usufruct,
inheritance, and certain other matters came direct from the customary
law already prevalent in Syria and Egypt when the Arabs conquered those
lands and that established law which they found there was the Roman
law.

In the parallel case of theology it may be
noted. (1)One of the earliest theological problems faced by
the Muslims was that of the eternity of the Qur'an. The older doctrine
was that it was eternal, co-eternal with God. Then the problem arose,
if this were so, then God is not the one source and creator of all
things, for there must have been an uncreated Qur'an, like a second
god, side by side with the One. This was hotly debated. The sect of the
Mu'tazilites held that the Qur'an was created by God and, as the author
must precede the work produced, the Qur'an must be less eternal than
God. The orthodox maintained that the Qur'an is co-eternal with God,
though the word in which it is expressed, like the paper on which it is
written, may be created and so not eternal God. Ultimately the orthodox
opinion prevailed and the Mu'tazilites became extinct, for those who
now call themselves by that name in India are modernists of recent
date, inno way connected with the old Mu'tazilites. The point
is that in the discussions between the Mu'tazilites and those who
adhered to the orthodox theory very much the same arguments are used as
were employed in the Arian controversy in the Christian Church, much of
this repeated in the writings of St. John of Damascus. In Christian
theology the term Word "was used as a mystical name for Christ, as it
was used by St. John in the fourth gospel, whilst the Muslims used the
same term to denote the written word in the Qur'an, but ingeneral
the arguments are the same. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion
that the problem involved was suggested to the Muslims by Christian
theology, the teaching of St. John of Damascus, or some other.

(2)Another early problem concerned the
freedom of the will. If God is almighty, then everything is overruled
and directed by him. Therefore man has no freedom. But Greek ethics
assumes that man is responsible only when he has free choice, and the
Qur'an gives commands and prohibitions in such a way as to imply that
man has such a choice. The Mu'tazilites argued that as God is just, he
will only punish men when they have been free to choose and have chosen
wrong. From this and the preceding point the Mu'tazilites called
themselves "the People of Unity and justice", of unity because
admitting only One Creator, One Source, and so asserting that the
Qur'an is created, and of justice as defending the freedom of the will
as necessary for man's responsibility.

(3) A third problem concerns the qualities of
God. God as the sole source of all that is must be a unity, not
compounded so God has no qualities or accidents, he is himself essence.
The only attributes that can be predicated of God are negative, that he
is eternal or having no beginning or end, that he is infinite as having
no limitations, and so on. This, however, seems to be contrary to the
Qur'an which does apply qualificative adjectives to God. The orthodox
opinion is that these attributes given in the Qur'an may be applied to
God because they are so applied, but they do not convey the same
meaning as they would if applied to men, nor do we know what they
imply. This was already taught by Plotinus and other neoPlatonists, and
it would seem that the problem and its solution was borrowed by the
Arabs from them.

At first sight it seems that these traces of
Greek influence on Arab thought most likely connect with Syria where
Arabs and Christians had very free intercourse; but the first traces of
that influence appear in Mesopotamia towards the middle of the eighth
century. Greek influence may have been applied at more than one point,
or may have spread from one area to another. It must be admitted that
we have very little evidence of philosophical or theological
speculation in Syria under the 'Umayyad dynasty, the dynasty which
began with Mu'awiya: such matters seem to, have made little appeal to
Arab interest at that period. The beginnings of speculative thought in
philosophy and theology and of interest in scientific research arose in
Mesopotamia, and more especially in Basra, to a less degree in Kufa.
These two cities were in the area where were the ancient cities of Hira
and Jundi-Shapur, and it is quite possible that a general influence due
to intercourse between Muslims and Christians had been engendered
before the direct transmission of Greek science from Jundi-Shapur to
the Muslim community had commenced.

After their first outspread and contact with
the Roman and Persian armies, the Arabs set themselves to learn the
methods of warfare used by the Romans, realizing that something
different was now required from the rapid raids and retreats which had
sufficed for desert warfare. The Byzantine writer, the Emperor Leo
Tacticus, describes the Arabs as imitating the order and discipline of
the Roman army in all details. And that was natural, for the most
influential Arabs under the 'Umayyads were those of the Syrian border
who had been trained as auxiliary Roman forces. At the same time it
must be admitted that the Persians also had already endeavoured to copy
Roman military methods. One of the new forms of warfare was the use of
engineering for besieging fortified cities and for constructing
fortifications for their- own defence. For this latter purpose they
imitated -the rectangular fortified camp characteristic of Roman
military methods. In each conquered area they planted such camp cities,
often on illchosen sites. In Palestine the chief such camp city was
jabia, in Egypt it was Fustat, in Ifriqiya, Qairawan. But none of these
were of so great importance as the two camp cities in 'Iraq, Basra
founded by 'Utba ibn 'Azwan in 635 or 637, and Kufa founded by Sa'd ibn
Waqqas a little later. These played a very leading part in the history
of Islam.

When the 'Umayyads seemed to be secularized and
indifferent to religion, and their laxity spread, as it did, to Medina
and Mecca, many of the stricter Muslims were greatly discouraged and
removed from those pla es such as Medina and went out to one or other
of the 'Iraqian camp cities, which thereby became the homes of
orthodoxy and incidentally of resistance to a khalifate commonly
regarded as disloyal to religion.

The intellectual life and interests of Basra
and Kufa were directed by religion and centred in Qur'an study and
theological sciences more or less connected with the Qur'an. At first
these sciences were chiefly those concerned with the Qur'an text and
that especially meant grammar and lexicography, but later on opened out
so as to include jurisprudence, tradition, and philosophy, all to a
great extent directed and tinctured by ideas gained from Greek studies.
Greek authorities were not used or read, but there are clear
indications that their substance had filtered through, and at Basra and
Kufa impinged on Arabic culture far more than was the case in Damascus.
It must not be overlooked that Hira, the great Nestorian stronghold,
was not far from Basra and a good deal of its population drifted to the
camp city.

Grammatical and literary studies began at Basra
with Abu I-Aswad ad-Du'ali, the friend and confidant of the Prophet's
son-in-law 'Ali. It naturally happened that many of the people of 'Iraq
who had learned Arabic only late in life when they were converted to
Islam committed many solecisms in reading the te t of the Qur'an, an
these errors distressed 'Ali. So he appealed to ad-Du'ali to draw up
some rules for the guidance of those who were not well used to the use
of the only language permitted for prayer and reading the revealed
word, But ad-Du'ali was prevented from carrying out this command by
'Ali's murder on 21St January, 661,and he was
reluctant to take any steps to assist the governor Ziyad ibn Abihi whom
he regarded with disapproval because he, after serving 'Ali, had
transferred his services to the 'Umayyad usurper Mu'awiya. Though Ziyad
renewed 'Ali's request ad-Du'ali held back and did nothing. Then one
day he heard a reader mispronounce two vowels in the text of Qur., 9,
3, so as to pervert the sense from "God is free from (the covenant of)
the idolaters, and His Apostle (also is free)" into "God is free from
(the covenant of the idolaters and (from the covenant of) His Apostle",
and this misrepresentation of the inspired word so shocked him that he
forthwith began to devise methods to prevent similar errors. For this
purpose he introduced vowel points into the hitherto unpainted Arabic
text and began giving instruction in the grammar and vocabulary of the
Arabic language. Incidentally in doing this he seems to have been to
some extent influenced by Aristotle's logic, not by any of the Greek
grammarians.

From Abu I-Aswad ad-Du'ali came a regular
succession of grammatical students and teachers in Basra. Nearly a
century later similar grammatical lectures were commenced at Kufa by
Abu Muslim Mu'adh ibn Muslim al-Harra (d. 723 or 727), who at one time
was tutor to the sons of the khalif 'Abd al Malik. These two centres
developed rival schools which agreed in theory, but differed in
practice. As yet the works of the ancient poets, valuable in
illustrating and explaining the older usages of the language, were not
collected in written Diwans, but transmitted by word of mouth, often
altered and interpolated in their transmission, Aware of this the Basra
school did not fit in with accepted standards, whilst the Kufans
carefully criticized the poetry heard and rejected that which accepted
all that was heard and are said to have used a good deal of forged
material, At first sight it seems that the Basri method was better, but
against that it must be noted that by that method the examples were
made to fit the rules drawn up, whilst the Kufi grammarians had to
adapt their rules to meet the spoken use, which is sounder.

The line of oral transmission of the two
schools formed a a grammatical pedigree which led down to the great
Basri grammarian Abu l-Hasan (or Bishr) 'Amr ibn 'Uthman al-Harithi,
commonly known as Sibawaih (d. between 783 and 816) who, it must be
noted, was not an Arab himself but a Persian and compiled his grammar
under the early 'Abbasids.

At Basra arose the first indications of
Mu'tazilite thought, with evidence of the solvent effect of Greek
philosophical speculation on Arab theology, and in 'Iraq round about
Basra were the first traces of juristic theory showing evident traces
of Roman law and the philosophical theories adopted by Roman lawyers.
Obviously the results of Greek influence began to appear, not in Syria
where the ruling Muslims were in such close contact with Christian
theology and its philosophical speculation, but in Basra, though we
have no direct evidence of intercourse with Greek and Christian
elements there. Damascus and its court were given over to sport and
politics, and theological speculation could not have sunk very deep.
Basra, on the other hand, kept alive a scholarly tradition and must
have been impressed by Greek teaching, possibly through Hira, more
probably through Jundi-Shapur, and so shows the first traces of Arab
Hellenization.

THE KHALIFATE OF BAGHDAD

(1) THE 'ABBASID REVOLUTION

MU'AWIYA had assumed the khalifate at Jerusalem
in 661, but at once removed to Damascus, where he had already spent
several years as Governor of Syria. At his accession began the rule of
what is known as the 'Umayyad dynasty, which ruled Islam until 749.
That dynasty suffered a break in 684 when it passed from one family to
another, but the new family, descended from Marwan, was a branch of the
'Umayyad clan, so the monarchy remained in 'Umayyad hands, and that was
the case until 744, when a second Marwan, not of 'Umayyad blood,
assumed power by military force. The court and administration were
settled at Damascus until 724 when the khalif Hisham removed to a
country residence, and after that the khalifs went to Damascus only to
be installed, and then retired to reside elsewhere, but the
administration remained at the Syrian capital until the accession of
Marwan II in 744. The court necessarily accompanied the khalif, but in
744 not only the court but also the administration were removed to
Harran, which thus became the capital, and Damascus sank to the level
of a provincial town, a change greatly resented by the Arabs of Syria.

Under the 'Umayyad dynasty the khalifate was a
purely Arab state. Its intellectual output consisted entirely of
poetry, largely of the old desert type, some of it so far modified as
to reflect the tone of the courts of Hira and of the B. Ghassan, all in
the spirit of the Jihiliya or "times of ignorance" before the
coming of Islam. Its poets praised their patrons, derided their rivals
and enemies, pictured the perils of the desert life, or sang the echos
of ancient tribal wars, The culture and science of the Greek world
found no place in their compositions, apparently meant nothing to them.

Under Marwan II the Syrian army was
disaffected, the Kharijites of 'Iraq revolted and entrenched themselves
in Mosul. Marwan was unable to march against them, his hold on Syria
was too insecure and he had to send an army down into Arabia where
there was another Kharijite revolt.

His more serious trouble, however, threatened
from Khurasan in East Persia. The Persians were dissatisfied they felt
that the Arab conquest of Persia had been due to a series of accidents,
to domestic revolution which undermined their military organization and
to the rash conduct of their youthful king. They longed for an
opportunity to try issue again with those whom they regarded as
half-civilized nomads. In such conditions it was inevitable for
conspiracies to flourish, indeed the whole 'Umayyad period shows the
community of Islam seething with dissatisfaction and ready for revolt,
partly on racial grounds, resentment at the way in which the Arabs
domineered over them even after they had embraced Islam, partly on
religious grounds, regarding the 'Umayyads as lax in religious
observance. Amongst the Persians were many adherents of the house of
'Ali, and these regarded all the khalifs, except 'Ali himself, as
usurpers. They recognized the leadership only of those descended from
'Ali. The extremer 'Alids even preferred 'Ali to Muhammad himself. All
these Shi'ites, as they were called, were divided amongst themselves
into many sects, but all agreed in disapproving the Arabs. At length a
revolutionary outbreak took form, its centre in Khurasan, but its
propaganda spread by secret agents who circulated everywhere through
the world of Islam, except in Spain where Muslims had their own
troubles. The identity of the person who was to be set upon the throne
after Marwan was deposed was kept secret until the revolution had
reached a successful end, then it was disclosed that the one selected
as khalif was Abu I-'Abbas of the Hashimite clan of the Quraysh tribe,
the same tribe as that to which the 'Umayyads belonged. The throne
merely passed from one Arab family to another.

Abu I-'Abbas was invested with the khalifate in
the great mosque of Kufa on 28th November, 749, and made it his first
task to exterminate the surviving 'Umayyads and their adherents, and
this he did so drastically as to earn for himself the surname of as-Saffah
"the butcher". Of the deposed dynasty only one young man escaped
and, after incredible dangers and hardships, reached distant Spain
where he became head of an independent state, and later on his
descendants assumed the title of khalif in opposition to the dynasty of
Abu I-'Abbas. There are stories of other 'Umayyads who found refuge in
the remoter parts of Africa, but these seem to have been adherents of
the dynasty, not themselves of 'Umayyad stock.

The downfall of the 'Umayyads was a definite
turning-point in the history of Islam. The 'Abbasid khalifs were no
less Arab than the 'Umayyads, but they had gained their throne largely
by Persian help, their chief n-dnisters were Persians more often than
Arabs, the heirs of several of the earlier 'Abbasid khalifs were
educated in Persian surroundings and had Persian blood as the result of
intermarriages. Persian ideas and Persian interests rivalled, in many
cases displaced, Arab ideas and interests, and so to a certain extent
Islam became Persianized. For all that the khalifate and its subject
must still be classed as Arab: they were commanded by a ruling dynasty
which was Arab, they used the Arabic language, professed an Arab
religion, and held in unbroken continuity from the desert men who had
conquered the Near East.

At first the 'Abbasid khalifs lived at al-Anbar8 on the
Euphrates. They had no desire to go to Syria
where prevailing feeling was strongly pro-'Umayyad. But the second
ruler of the 'Abbasid line, Abu I-'Abbas' brother al-Mansur determined
to found a new capital. After considering various sites he at length
decided to build at Baghdad, a town of considerable antiquity which had
been known in Babylonian times as BAG-DA-Du, a name of unknown origin.
By a play upon words later Persian writers gave this name a fanciful
Persian derivation and made it mean "the Garden of God".

In making this choice he was guided by the
advice of his minister, the Persian Khalid ibn Barmak, and having
resolved on building he called in the services of two astrologers to
lay out the foundations and select a propitious hour for setting the
first stone in position. The astrologers chosen for that purpose were
an-Nawbakht, who was a Persian, and Mashallah ibn Athari, a Persian Jew,9 of Marw.

Guided by these astrologers al-Mansur laid the
first stone of his new capital towards the end of the year 762, and
three years later the building was sufficiently advanced for occupation
to commence. Many of the inhabitants came from the neighbouring camp
cities of Basra and Kufa, both hotbeds of sedition and always restless
and fanatical. The presence of these new citizens helps to explain why
from the outset Baghdad showed a turbulent and troublesome atmosphere.
One suburb of the city known as Karkh, which had already existed as a
Persian village, was given over to Persians.

Al-Mansur desired to make his capital a city
whose fame should radiate through all Islam, and for this purpose he
invited to it a number of distinguished scholars, Qur'an readers and
preachers, grammarians and traditionalists from the two neighbouring
camp cities which had already become recognized centres of Muslim
scholarship, as yet restricted to Qur'anic and theological studies.
Such men of learning were then beginning to form a respected middle
class which later rose by court favour to high offices in the State,
but was entirely distinct from the older aristocracy of the Arab tribal
chieftains of noble pedigree who had dominated Islam under the
'Umayyads. The learned men of Kufa and Basra, many already famous,
formed a kind of academic aristocracy which tended to act as a check on
the arrogant pretensions of the hereditary nobility who had proved a
source of danger in the court of Damascus and were still disaffected
towards the 'Abbasid dynasty which they regarded as semi-Persian.
Unfortunately al-Mansur suffered from the unprincely vice of avarice,
and the rewards he offered were so moderate and were paid so grudgingly
that he earned the nickname Abu d-Dawaniq "father of
sixpences".

In 765 al-Mansur was taken seriously ill with
some gastric disorder and was advised to send for the Nestorian
physician jirjis ibn Bukhtyishu', head of the academy and hospital at
Jundi-Shapur. This was the first contact of the court at Baghdad with
the family of Bukhtyishu' which afterwards played an important part in
the cultural education of the Arabs. Nothing is known of the
Bukhtyishu' who was the father of this jirjis, but as the name occurs
several, times in the course of the history of Baghdad it is convenient
to classify him as Bukhtyishu' I.

Of all the East Persians who had helped the
'Abbasid revolution and afterwards came west to share the prosperity of
the new dynasty, the most distinguished belonged to the wealthy and
wellborn family of the Barmakids, originally of Balkh in Bactria, but
afterwards settled at Marw. This family was descended from the Barmaks
or hereditary abbots of the Buddhist monastery of Nawbahar in Balkh,
but had conformed to the Mazdean religion some time probably not long
before the Muslim conquest, and then embraced Islam. Khalid ibn Barmak,
the head of the family, was minister of finance under as-Saffah, and
was made governor of Mesopotamia by al-Nia'nsur.'His son Yahya, at one
time governor of Armenia was entrusted by al-Mahdi with the education
of his son;ho afterwards became khalif as Harun ar-Rashid, and he
appointed Yahya wazir of the whole empire and entrusted him with
unlimited power. In this office Yahya showed himself a wise and just
administrator, and under his guidance the empire prospered. Of Yahya's
three sons Fazl was governor of Khurasan, then of Egypt, and Ja'far
succeeded Yahya as wazir. But the family, after being the first in
wealth, power, and honour is Islam, fell from its high estate in 803
for reasons which were a mystery to contemporaries and never have been
adequately explained. Yahya died in prison in 806, Ja'far in 909. Other
sons seem to have been set at liberty after Yahya's death. At the
accession of al-Amin in 8o8 all surviving members of the Barmakid
family were set free and had property and honours restored to them.

The Barmakids were keenly interested in Greek
science, which was then the subject of much attention at Marw, and
brought with them this taste, finding a kindred spirit already existing
in the Nestorian academy of Jundi-Shapur.

Jirjis ibn Bukhtyishu', who had come from
Jundi-Shapur to attend al-Mansur, remained in Baghdad as court
physician until advancing years caused him to ask to be released and he
retired full of honours to Jundi-Shapur where he died in 769. In 785
al-Hadi, mindful of Jirjis' excellent services, invited his son
Bukhtyishu' II, who had succeeded his father as head of the academy and
hospital to go to Baghdad, but at court he had to face such determined
opposition from Abu Quraysh the Queen's physician that for the sake of
peace he was sent back to Jundi-Shapur. Under Harun ar-Rashid he was
again summoned to court to treat the khalif for severe headaches, and
later his son Jibra'il was brought to court and remained there until
his death in 828-9. Whilst he was there the influence of the Barmakid
wazir was making itself felt and efforts were being made to introduce
to the Arabs the revived scientific learning derived from Greek
sources, which was already spreading amongst the Syriac-speaking
Christians. The Barmakid Yahya was an enthusiastic supporter of this
revival of science with which he had been in touch in Marw, and was
warmly supported by the Nestorian scholars of Jundi-Shapur.

Harun ar-Rashid became khalif in 786. He had
been educated inPersia and under Persian influence at the
hands of Yahya the Barmakid and throughout his reign showed strongly
pro-Persian sympathies. He took great interest in science and
literature, far beyond any of his predecessors, and the Hellenistic
movement in Islam matured under his auspices. His reign was afterwards
looked back upon as a golden age, but the khalifate had already begun
to show signs of decay: in 800 he consented to the practical
independence of the Aglabid governor of Qairawan in Libya, the
beginning of a process of devolution which finally brought about the
disintegration of the empire. Neither he nor any other of the 'Abbasid
khalifs were able to extend their rule over Andalus, which had been a
province under the 'Umayyads.

Influenced by his Barmakid minister Harun gave
active support to the scholars who studied and translated Greek
scientific works, sending out agents to purchase Greek manuscripts in
the Roman Empire, a generous policy which brought a good deal of
important material to Baghdad, and this was supplemented by similar
generosity on the part of private persons who spent freely on
manuscripts and translators. A good deal of the material thus obtained
was medical and so appealed to the physicians of Jundi-Shapur, and this
was rendered into Syriac as had been the case in former times, but
before long Arabic versions made their appearance, at first translated
from the Syriac, later directly from the Greek originals. The works of
Aristotle were familiar in Syriac translations, and with them were
commentaries and summaries, some composed in Syriac, others translated
from the Greek. But at first the Aristotelian material was confined to
the logical treatises. It was not until some time after the death of
Harun ar-Rashid that a serious and direct examination of Aristotelian
philosophy was undertaken by Arab scholars. Derived through Syriac
versions and commentaries the teaching of Aristotle was strongly
tinctured with neo-Platonism, and that type of thought continued to
colour Arabic philosophy to quite later times.

There seems reason to suppose that some of the
earliest direct translations from the Greek was concerned with
astronomy and mathematics. At an early date the Sindhind, an
Indian treatise on astronomy and connected mathematics, based on
Alexandrian teaching, was translated into Arabic, perhaps by means of a
Persian version. It is said that the translators into Arabic were
Ibrahim al-Fazari and Ya'qub ibn Tariq. Of the former of these Mas'udi
says, "I will also cite the astronomer Ibrahim al-Fazari, author of the
celebrated poem on the stars, astrology, and the study of the skies"
(Mas'udi, Muruj, viii, 290), and then goes on to name him as
one of al-Mansur's personal friends. The celebrated poem on the stars
is not extant. He is said also to have been the first Arab to make an
astrolabe. The son of this Ibrahim was Muhammad (d. between 769 and
806), who is sometimes mentioned as having been the translator. The
date of a translation which is ascribed sometimes to the father,
sometimes to the son, must be regarded as uncertain. Yaqub ibn Tariq
was a distinguished mathematician who is said to have been the author
of a treatise on the sphere and another on the karaja or arc
of 225, following the tradition of Archimedes who divided the circle
into 96 degrees, and also to have drawn up astronomical tables. That
the Sindhind was translated so early as al-Mansur is doubtful,
but obviously the translation was well known to 'Abdallah Muhammad ibn
Musa alKhwarizmi, who made it the basis of his astronomical tables, but
his work came some fifty years later, and the tables are now lost, but
are cited and incorporated in later work by Maslama al-Majriti (circ.
1007). When tables are only known to us by being cited or
incorporated in later work, we can never be sure how they have been
touched up or improved, and how much remains of the original.

In order to understand and use the Sindhind
it was found necessary to make translations of the Almajest
(Þ
ìåãßó“ç
ó²í“áòéò) of Ptolemy and
Euclid's Elements, and these seem to have been
translated directly from the Greek and to have been the earliest
translation thus made. It is stated that it was made from a Syriac
version, and this is not disproved by the absence of any such version
surviving: Syriac literature is not rich in mathematical works. In
favour of an early renderom the Greek we have only the presumption that
reference must have been made to the original to get an accurate
rendering of the technical terms, a matter of the utmost importance in
mathematical work. The Arabic versions were several times revised and
corrected by comparison with the Greek text, so the earliest may have
been made before Harun ar-Rashid, or in the early part of his reign.
There is a tradition that the translations of Euclid and the Almajest
were made at the suggestion of Ja'far the Barmakid, which would put
them before 803, when the Barmakids fell into disgrace. If the
observatory at Jundi-Shapur was in use before the time of an-Nahawandi
(813-833), of which we cannot be certain, no doubt the necessary
equipment in mathematics was available there and would be in Syriac. It
is of course quite possible that the necessary mathematics were
obtained from Indian works, not from Euclid or Ptolemy. The "Sons of
Musa" had an observatory in Baghdad, but that would be after the time
of Harun ar-Rashid.

Not much can be learned from the two
astrologers who assisted al-Mansur in laying the foundations of
Baghdad, though both of these are said to have produced mathematical,
astronomical, or astrological works. One of these, an-Nawbakht (d.
776-7), is described as a convert from the Zoroastrian religion and a
favourite of al-Mansur. He is said to have been the author of a work on
judicial astrology and to have compiled astronomical tables, but of
these works nothing survives. His son Abu Sahl al-Fadl an-Nawbakht (d. circ.
815) was Harun ar-Rashid's librarian and made translations from the
Persian. The other astrologer, Mashallah, is said to have been a Jew of
Marw whose name had originally been Misha, short for Manasseh (Fihrist,
i, 273). Several of his works survive in Hebrew or Latin
translations. Amongst these was a popular work on astronomy, not
astrology.

It seems fairly certain that medical material
that medical material came through a Syriac medium, direct translation
from the Greek coming later. This may have been the case also with
astronomical and mathematical material, but extant Syriac translations
seem to be contemporaneous with the Arabic versions, not earlier, most
indeed the work of Hunayn ibn Ishaq or his school. It may be that
mathematics and astronomy came through Indian authorities, not
translations from the Greek but based upon Greek teaching, and
translation from Greek into Syriac and Arabic came later when efforts
were made to check and correct the available material. Certainly the
earliest Arab mathematicians, such as al-Khwarizmi, knew a great deal
which does not appear in the Greek authors and much of which (but not
all) can be traced to Indian workers. There are gaps in the chain of
transmission which it is not easy to fill up.

TRANSLATION INTO ARABIC

(1) THE FIRST TRANSLATORS

BAGHDAD was founded in 762. Harun ar-Rashid
became khalif in 786 and in his reign Baghdad became the centre of a
movement which aimed at translating Greek scientific material into
Arabic. In the twenty-four years intervening between the foundation of
the city and the accession of Harun ar-Rashid influences must have been
at work to prompt this undertaking. Of such influences two were
obvious, one radiating from Marw far away in Khurasan in the east, the
other from Jundi-Shapur near at hand. Marw in Khurasan was indeed
distant, but it had a great deal to do with early Baghdad. The
'Abbasids had been set upon the throne by a rebellion which had its
source in Khurasan and which drew its chief support from that province.
The Marw family of the Barmakids supplied the all-powerful ministers
who guided and to a.great extent controlled the 'Abbasid government.
Many Persians, especially those of Khurasan, had flocked west to share
in the triumph of the revolution and claim their share in its spoils.
At the 'Abbasid court Persian influence very much thrust the Arab
element into the background. The Persians were not modest about this:
the Arabs had been. arrogant, now the Persians repaid them with greater
arrogance, deriding the Arabs as semi-barbarous nomads of the desert,
parvenus without a history behind them, devoid of culture. This
anti-Arab demonstration, open and plainly expressed) went by the name
of the Shu'ubiya, an organized, virulent, and outspoken expression of
anti-Arab feeling.

A typical figure of the times was Abu Muhammad
ibn al-Muqaffa', a Persian who entered the service of 'Isa ibn lu,
uncle of the first two 'Abbasid khalifs, and became a convert to Islam,
though many regarded his conversion as insincere.He translated
from Pahlawi or Old Persian the book known as Kalilag wa-Dimnag, itself
a translation of a Buddhist work brought from India by the Christian
periodeutes Budh who had been sent to India to procure drugs, and with
the drugs brought back this book and the game of chess. Ibn al-Muqaffa'
produced a translation which is regarded as a model of classical
Arabic, and as such is still studied in schools. He also made a
translation of the Persian Khudai-nama, a biographical history
of the Persian kings, calling his Arabic version Sjyar muluk
al-'Ajam. This work no longer exists, but it formed the basis of
Firdawsi's Shah-nama and many long extracts are given in Ibn
Qutaiba's 'Uyun al-akhbar. In Arabic he composed a treatise "on
obedience due to kings" (ad-durra al-yatima fita'at
a'-mulk, printed Cairo, 1893 (?) and 1326, 1331 A.H.). He also
wrote several short treatises on "Adab", etiquette, duties of civil
servants, and good manners, a favourite subject in Old Persian
literature. Living in Basra and f eeling secure in the protection of
noble patrons he permitted himself many impertinences towards Sufyan
ibn Mu'awiya al-Muhallibi, the city governor, jeering at him as "Ibn
al-mughialina (son of the lascivious female), all of which Sufyan
endured in silence. After the rebellion of 'Abdallah against his nephew
al-Mansur the khalif agreed to pardon his uncle and Ibn al-Muqaffa' was
directed to draw up a formal letter of pardon for the khalif to sign.
In this letter he inserted "if at any time the Commander of the
Faithful act perfidiously towards his uncle 'Abdallah ibn 'Ali, his
wives shall be divorced from him, his horses confiscated to the service
of God, his slaves set free, and Muslims absolved from allegiance to
him". Al-Mansur read this draft and asked who had composed it. On
hearing that it was drawn up by Ibn al-Muqaffa' he said nothing, but
sent a letter to Sufyan telling him that he might deal with the
secretary as he saw fit. Various accounts are given of the way in which
the governor gratified his resentment towards Ibn al-Muqaffa' by
putting him to death, all of them extremely cruel. This took place in
757-8 (Ibn Khallikan, i, 432-3).

The cradle of the Shu'ubiya was Khurasan and
its capital Marw. Harun ar-Rashid himself was educated at Marw and had
strongly pro-Persian leanings. The astronomical records kept under the
Sasanid kings of Persia were continued under the Arabs and were
continued in Persian, not in Arabic, until much later. From Marw came
some of the earliest translators of astronomical works, and it would
seem that Khurasan was the channel through which astronomical and
mathematical material came to Baghdad, for which very probably the
Barmakid ministers, natives of Marw, were the agents. There was, it is
true, an observatory at Jundi-Shapur, but we know little of its
activity before the time of Ahmad an-Nahawandi (813-833), who made
observations there some years after Harun's death. Some of the
astronomical and mathematical material seems to have been obtained from
India, derived from a Greek source in the first place, but probably it
was transmitted to the Arabs through a Persian medium, though the
actual Persian works whereby it was transmitted are no longer extant.

Jundi-Shapur was near Baghdad and under the
'Abbasid khalifs distinguished physicians were summoned thence to
court. Successful in their professional work they remained inBaghdad
as court physicians and became men of wealth and influence. Their
success inspired other physicians to follow them and they, with
scholars from Marw, formed a group under court patronage which became
something very like an academy, a society of scholars rather than a
teaching body. The men of jzindi-Shapur were accustomed to study Greek
science in Syriac translations: gradually these Syriac versions were
supplemented by Arabic ones, and finally the Arabic versions replaced
them.

There is a legend that the Sindhind, the
Hindu revised form of Brahmagupta's Siddhanta, was translated
into Arabic as early as the reign of al-Mansur. It was an early
translation, though probably not so early as that. But it proved
useless as the Arabs could not understand it. It is related that Ja'far
the Barmakid perceived the reason of this to be that the Arabs lacked
the preliminary knowledge of geometry and astronomy necessary to follow
it, and at his advice Harun ar-Rashid ordered a translation to be made
of Euclid's Elements and Claudius Ptolemy's megale (synaxis).
To this title the Arabs added the article al- and changed the megale
into megiste, deliberately, it would appear, for Ya'qubi writing in
891 explained that "the meaning of al-majisti is 'the greatest book'"
(Ya'qubim, ed. Houtsma, Leiden, 1883). Thus the work appears in Arabic
as Kitab al-Majisti, which in medieval Latin became magasiti,
presumably an attempted vocalizing of the unpainted mjsty. It
does not appear that the translations of Euclid and Ptolemy were made
until after the reign of Harun ar-Rashid, so the story that they were
suggested by Ja'far ibn Barmak is dubious.

The translator of the al-Majisti is
said to have been al-Haiiajibn Tusuf ibn Matar al-Hasib, who
finished it about 827, which was well after the fall of the Barmakids
and after the death of Harun ar-Rashid. The same translator is said to
have made an Arabic version of Euclid's Elements, not
including Book X which was later (about 910)translated with
Pappus' commentary by Sa'id ad-Dimishqi. The translation of Euclid by
al-Hajjaj with the commentary of an-Naziri (d. circ. 923), who
also wrote a commentary on the al-Majisti, was published by T. O.
Besthorn and J. L. Heiberg, Euclidis elementa exinter,pretatione
al Hadschdschadschii cum commentary an Naziriiarab. et lat.,
ed. notisque...Copenhagen, 1893. The earliest commentary on Euclid
seems to have been that of al-'Abbas al-jawhari (d. circ. 833).
Another tradition represents the translation of the al-Majisti was
made by Sahl ibn Rabbanat-Tabari, a native of Marw
and a Jew as his name ibn Rabban "the rabbi's son" denotes.
Marw, one of the centres of Greek scholarship, had many Jewish
neighbours who formed a colony of their own as was the Jewish custom,
for they preferred to live in communities where the Jewish law could be
observed. On the road betwen Marw and Balkh lay the city of Maymana
which was at one time called al.yahudiya "the Jewish (city)", but that
name was changed to Maymana "the auspicious" at the request of its
inhabitants who disliked the association with Jewry. This Sahl is
described as having gone to Baghdad in the days of Harun ar-Rashid and
having made the translation for him. He was a distinguished scholar.
and teacher of Marw who was known there as Barbun "the surpassing".
Some account of him is given by his son 'Ali ibn Sahl ibn Rabban
at-Tabari (d. 850) in his great medical work Firdawsal-Hikhma
"the Paradise of Wisdom" (ed. I. Siddiqi, Berlin, 1928).Yet
another tradition represents the translation of d-Majisti as
made by Sahl and revised by al-Hajjaj. This early version of the work
was subsequently revised by Hunayn ibn Ishaq (below), later by Thabit
ibn Qurra (below), then by Muhammad ibn Jabir ibn Sinan al-Battani (d.
929). Al-Hajjaj's translation of Euclid was revised by Qusta ibn Luqa
about 912-13.

The earliest information which the Arabs
obtained about Aristotle from Syriac sources was confined to his
logical works which had been translated and retranslated into Syriac,
and on which several commentaries were accessible. The corpus of
Aristotelian logic included the Categories, the Hermeneutics, the Prior
Analytics, the Posterior Analytics, the Topics, the Sophistica, the
Rhetoric, and the Politics, these last two works classed with the
logical treatises by the Arabs. To these was added by Tuhanna (or
Yahya) ibn Batriq about 815 another work, unfortunately
a spurious one, the Sirr al-asrar or "secret of secrets",
which was accepted as Aristotelian. It is a work of miscellaneous
contents, including physiognomy and dietetics.

About the same time lived Abu rahya
al-Batriq (d. between 798 and 806), who made an Arabic translation
of an astrological work, the Tetrabiblos of Ptolemy. A
commentary on this was written by 'Umar ibn al-Farrukhan (d. circ. 8I5),
and a paraphrase by Muhammad, ibn Jabir ibn Sinan al-Battani (d. 929).

Jibra'il I, the son of the otherwise unknown
Bukhtyishu' I of Jundi-Shapur had attended al-Mansur, then retired to
his own city and there finished his life. His. son Bukhtyishu' II for a
time acted as court physician to al-Hadi, but had to go back to
Jundi-Shapur because of the opposition raised by the Queen's physician.
He returned to the court of Baghdad under Harun ar-Rashid and attended
both the khalif and his minister Ja'far the Barmakid. Before his death
in 801 this Bukhtyishu' recommended his son Jibra'il II to the khalif,
and he in due course became court physician. There is no evidence that
the first two members of this family did anything to promote Greek
science amongst the Arabs, but the second Jibra'il did, and as he acted
in conjunction with Ja'far ibn Barmak it is obvious that he held an
influential position in Baghdad even before his appointment as court
physician. Bukhtyishu' died in 801and then Jibra'il became the
khalif's physician, after Harun's death in 808 continuing to serve his
son al-Amin. But this led to his imprisonment when al-Ma'mun became
master of Baghdad and all those who had been supporters of his brother
al-Amin fell into disgrace. He was set free in 817 to attend the wazir
Hasan ibn Sahl and lived without other disturbance until 829. He, no
less than Ja'far ibn Barmak, was a patron and encourager of the work of
translation from the Greek, a great admirer of Greek medical science,
but was not himself responsible for any translation. He was the author
of a Kunnash or medical compendium in Syriac in which he drew
freely from Galen Hippocrates and Paul of Aegina; this manual was long
in use amongst Syriac speaking practitioners and did a good deal to
familiarize them with Greek medical teaching. The work is now lost, but
some knowledge of it can be obtained from the tenth century Syriac
lexicon of Bar Bahoul, who uses it to illustrate technical medical
terms (Bar Bahoul, edited by R. Duval, Paris 1888-1898). It was largely
at his suggestion that Harun ar-Rashid sent into the Roman Empire to
obtain manuscripts and commissioned translations from the Greek. He and
other contemporary patrons not only provided for Arabic translations
but also encouraged the preparation of improved Syriac versions, for it
is worth noting that a new and better series of translations into
Syriac was being made at the same time that translation into Arabic was
commenced. Translation into Syriac went on as long as the Jundi-Shapur
academy was in existence.

The general conclusion is that the work of
translation of scientific material began under Harun ar-Rashid with the
encouragement of the wazir Ja'far ibn Barmak, and that this at first
was especially concerned with mathematical and astronomical works,
several of them translated by scholars from Ja'far's own city of Marw.
The translation of medical works perhaps began a little later, and was
associated with Jibra'il II. But there seem to have been some other
translators not connected with the semi-official group gathered at
court. Medical works came through Syriac versions in the first place
and -so did at least some of the astronomical and mathematical
material, but in this latter direct reference to the Greek originals
seems to have taken place earlier. This is as might be expected, for it
was in mathematics that absolute accuracy in terminology was most
important, Arabic lacked the technical terms used by Greek scientists.
Sometimes the Greek terms were simply transliterated, but very often
those terms show that they have passed through an Aramaic (Syriac)
medium on their way, and this is more obvious in medical works than in
mathematical and astronomical. As has been noted, the desire of more
accurate scientific knowledge led to the preparation of more careful
translations or the revision of existing versions, but it also resulted
in the compilation of commentaries as well as original treatises based
on the Greek authorities with citations illustrated and explained by
original work. The encouragement of science became fashionable under
Harun and many of the leading courtiers became patrons and spent freely
on their scientific prot6g6s. Not all of these may have been inspired
by a pure love of science. When it became a fashion at court it is
likely enough that many ambitious of advertising themselves found this
a means of doing so. Outside court circles the scientific movement made
small appeal. The Arabs generally took little interest in it: their
learned men still spent their time in the study of Qur'an,
jurisprudence, and grammar. So far, until the end of the reign of Harun
ar-Rashid, no real work was done in the Aristotelian philosophy,
Aristotle was treated only as an authority on logic.

Harun ar-Rashid died in 808, leaving the empire
to his two sons al-Amin and al-Ma'mun, the former taking the western
half with his capital at Baghdad, the other the eastern half with Marw
as his capital. This naturally did not work and civil war between the
two brothers followed inevitably. Al-Ma'mun's army, led by abler
generals, obtained the upper hand, until in 812 under the leadership of
Tahir it besieged Baghdad. This siege involved terrible sufferings and
al-Amin was compelled to lay heavy requisitions on the citizens. At
this the merchants entered into correspondence with Tahir. Discovering
that he was betrayed al-Amin tried to escape and was on his way to make
his submission to Tahir when he was found and murdered by some Persian
free lances. These tragic events form the subject of an epic poem by
al-Khuzaimi, a type of poem rare in Arabic.

At the death of al-Amin the whole empire fell
into the hands of al-Ma'mun, but he preferred to remain at Marw and
sent Hasan ibn Sahl to Baghdad as his deputy. Hasan's rule lasted six
years, a period of tyranny and disorder gradually merging into anarchy,
of which al-Ma'mun was kept in complete ignorance. At last the city
revolted and elected Mansur ibn Mahdi governor until,such time as
al-Ma'mun could take over control in person. There was another reason
why Baghdad was dissatisfied in addition to the tyrannical misrule of
Hasan. Al-Ma'mun had invited the Shi'ite claimant to the throne, 'Ali
ar-Rida, to Marw, received him with exceptional honour, and promised to
make him his heir. This caused great offence at Baghdad which had no
desire to be under Shi'ite rule.

At length the khalif was made aware of the
critical state of affairs and warned that unless he went to Baghdad and
took matters in hand for himself the khalifate would pass out of his
hands. Thus warned he set out for Baghdad in 819, first disposing of
'Ali ar-Rida by poison. With him he took an extensive and extravagant
court, as well as an army and also a select company of scientists, for
he himself was deeply interested in scientific studies. At Baghdad he
was welcomed with great rejoicings. He was a man of handsome presence,
a thing which counts for much in oriental princes, generous, even
lavish to extravagance in his expenditure and generally regarded as
prudent, determined, of sound judgment, and clemency. According to the
historians he was endowed with every grace and favour of an ideal
prince. Educated in Marw in a neo-Hellenistic atmosphere, he applied
philosophical principles to Muslim doctrines: no doubt others did the
same, some of them men of exemplary piety, but they were careful to
preserve external decorum by treating matters of religion th respect.
Not so al-Ma'mun. He had a taste for discussing religious problems and
this he did with considerable freedom, so that one of his courtiers
once addressed him in jest as "Prince of Unbelievers", a jest which was
allowed to pass but its maker was never forgiven. Pro-Persian and
antiArab, son of a Persian mother and married to a Persian wife, he had
little in common with the narrow fanaticism of the typical Baghdadite.
Unfortunately he was so far convinced of the rightness of the
Mu'tazilite views that he determined to force them upon his subjects,
selecting as a test point the question whether the Qur'an was, or was
not, created. In 827 he published a decree penalizing any who did not
agree that it was created and so not co-etemal with God. This decree
was deeply resented as an innovation, for Islam has never recognized
the khalif as a religious teacher. The doctrines of religion are
defined, not by the State, but by those who are learned in theology. As
the penal was not successful, al-Ma'mun reissued it in stricter terms
with many peevish complaints about the non-observance of his commands,
and established a mihna or inquisition before which any person
could be brought and examined as to his opinions, suffering punishment
if they differed from the officially authorized rationalism. Under this
law there were some martyrs and many suffered imprisonment and other
punishments, amongst them Ahmad ibn Hanbal, a revered and greatly
honoured traditionalist and jurist. All those who suffered were
regarded as saints.

Ten years after his arrival in Baghdad
al-Ma'mun attempted to repeat the experiment of the Greek geometer
Eratosthenes and measure the earth's arc. To do this he assembled a
number of scientists in the plain of Sinjar in Mesopotamia, West of
Mosul. The leading scientists thus gathered were Abu t-Taiyab Sanad ibn
'Ali (d. after 860), who afterwards directed the erection of the
observatory in Baghdad, Yahya ibn Abi Mansur al-Mai'muni, a freedman of
al-Ma'mun's family, al-'Abbas ibn Sa'id al-jawhari (d. after 833), and
'Ali ibn 'Isa al-Asturlabi. He divided these scientists into two
parties which moved apart until they saw a change of one degree in the
elevation of the pole. The distance travelled was then measured, and it
was found that one party had travelled 57 miles, the other 58½,
miles, each mile reckoned as 4,000 "black cubits", a measure of length
specially devised for this experiment. In 832 the experiment was
repeated at Qasian, near Damascus.

When Jibra'il left Jundi-Shapur for Baghdad he
was succeeded as head of the academy and hospital there by Abu
Zakariah Yahya ibn Masawaih (d. 857), a Nestorian who was the son
of a druggist and had received his training as a pupil of 'Isa b. Nun,
who became Nestorian patriarch in 823. At that time medicine was in so
great repute that it was regarded as the foremost form of scientific
education and consequently it is common to find that Nestorian and
Monophysite clergy in Asia often had a medical training rather than one
in litterae humaniores. But Ibn Masawaih left Jundi-Shapur and went to
Baghdad at Jibra'il's suggestion, and was introduced at court as a
skilful physician and one learned in Greek medicine. He was the author
of a treatise on ophthalmology entitled Daghal al-'ayn "the
disease of the eye", and also a collection of medical aphorisms An-nawadirat-tibiyya, which he dedicated to his pupil Hunayn ibn Ishaq.
This work attained great popularity and was translated into Latin, but
wrongly ascribed to St. John Damascene. In later times Ibn Masawaih's
treatise on the eye was so greatly esteemed that it was selected as one
of the set books for the examination established by the Khalif al-Qahir
(932-4) for the licence to practise medicine, an examination at first
under the direction of Sinan ibn Thabit. There is also an "Instruction
for the examination of oculists" which is ascribed to him, but it is
simply a cram book based on the Daghal al-'ayn probably a later
compilation made for the use of examination candidates. The Daghal
al-'ayn "is the earliest treatise on ophthalmology, the Greek,
Syriac, and other special textbooks being lost. It is written in bad
Arabic, with many Greek, Syriac, and Persian technical terms, a rather
confusing compilation without system, and doubtless intermixed with
later interpolations. One complete MS. is extant in Taimur Pasha's
library (Cairo), another in Leningrad" (M. Meyerhof, The Book of
the Ten Treatises, Cairo, 1928, ix-x). Analysis and extracts of
this work in German by M. Meyerhof and C. Preufer, Die
Augenheilkunde des Juhanna ibn Masawaih, in DerIslam, vi,
19I5, pp. 217-256.

The most celebrated of all translators of Greek
scientific works into Arabic was Hunayn ibn Ishaq al-'Abadi (d.
873 or 877) The outline of his life and work are well known from his
autobiography written in the form of letters to 'Ali ibn Yahya in 875.
(Text from two manuscripts in the Aya Sofia Mosque at Stambul, ed. with
translation by G. Bergestrasser, Leipzig, 1925.) He was a native of
Hira, the son of a Christian (Nestorian) druggist. In later life he
learned Arabic, so presumably he did not belong to the ruling class of
Hira which was Arabic-speaking, and this is endorsed by his name
'Abadi, which shows that he belonged to the subject people of Hira. As
a young man he attended the lectures of Ibn Masawaih (above) at
Jundi-Shapur, and so far earned. the approval of his teacher that he
was made his dispenser. But later he annoyed Ibn Masawaih by asking too
many questions in class, and at least his teacher lost patience and
said: "What have the people of Hira to do with medicine? -- go and
change money in the streets," and drove him out weeping (Ibn al-Qifti,
174). Expelled from the academy Hunayn went away to "the land of the
Greeks" and there obtained a sound knowledge of the Greek language and
familiarity with textual criticism such as had been developed in
Alexandria. In due course he returned and settled for a time at Basra
where he studied Arabic under Yhalid ibn Ahmad then, some time before
826, proceeded to Baghdad where he obtained the patronage of Jibra'il
and for him prepared translations of some of Galen's works. Harun
ar-Rashid died in 808 and al-Ma'mun succeeded in 813, after the brief
and stormy reign of al-Amin, so that Hunayn's activities belong to a
period later than Harun ar-Rashid. The excellence of his translations,
far surpassing any previous work of the sort, greatly impressed
Jibra'il who then introduced him to the three "Sons of Musa", wealthy
patrons of learning. Their father, Musa ibn Shakir, after a life spent
in the lucrative profession of a brigand in Khurasan, had reformed and
been pardoned, then settled down to spend his declining years in
cultured leisure. He entrusted his sons to the Khalif al-Ma'mun, who
appointed Ishaq ibn Ibrahim, and later Yahya ibn Abi Mansur to be their
teachers, and from those preceptors they received a training in
mathematics. They were not so much interested in medicine, but
patronized Hunayn chiefly because of his excellence as a translator. Of
these "Sons of Musa" the eldest Muhammad rose to high office under the
Khalif al Motadid (892-932), and distinguished himself in astronomy and
geometry, a second son Ahmad excelled in mechanics, and the third son
Hasan attained celebrity in geometry. They had a house in Baghdad near
the Bab at-Taq, the gate at the eastern end of the main bridge over the
Tigris, opening into the great market street of East Baghdad, and there
they built an observatory where they made observations during the years
850-870. To them we owe a treatise on plane and spherical geometry, a
collection of geometrical problems and a manual of geometry which was
translated into Latin by Gerhard of Cremona (d. 1187) as "Liber Trium
Fratrum de geometria" (ed. M. Curtze in Nova Acta d. Kais. Leop.
Carol. Deustscen Akad. Naturforscher, xlix,109-167),which
long held its own as an introduction to geometry. They were generous
patrons of scientific research and according to Ibn Abi Usaibi'a spent
at one time an average Of 500 dinars (say £200) a month on their
scientific proteges.

The "Sons of Musa" introduced Hunayn to the
Khalif al-Ma'mun some time before Jibra'il's death in 828-9, and
apparently at Jibra'il's suggestion the khalif founded an academy which
he called the "House of Wisdom" (Daral-hikhma)as
an institution where the preparation of translations from Greek
scientists would be made and circulated amongst the Arabs, placing
Hunayn in charge. From that time forwards the work of translation went
on steadily, and before long Arab students found themselves equipped
with the greater part of the works of Galen, Hippocrates, Ptolemy,
Euclid, Aristotle, and various other Greek authorities. The work of
translation was twofold, versions were made in Arabic and also in
Syriac, these latter to replace the defective translations already in
use. Ibn Masawaih, the teacher who had expelled Hunayn from
Jundi-Shapur, was reconciled to him and became his warm supporter.
Hunayn had many other friends and clients, mostly physicians of
Jundi-Shapur and those who had removed to Baghdad and used the Arabic
language, like Salmawaih ibn Bunan an alumnus of Jundi-Shapur who
became court physician to al-Mu'tasim in 832. All these were better
translations than had been known in the past and were made from good
Greek manuscripts, many of them procured by agents of the khalif who
were sent into the Roman Empire and empowered to spend considerable
sums on the purchase of the best codices.

Altogether Hunayn translated into Syriac twenty
books of Galen, two for Bukhtyishu' Jibra'il's son, two for Salmawaih
ibn Bunan, one for Jibra'il, and one for Ibn Masawaih, and also revised
the sixteen translations made by Sergius of Rashayn. He translated
fourteen treatises into Arabic, three for Muhammad, one for Ahmad, sons
of Musa. He and his assistants produced versions both in Syriac and
Arabic, though no doubt some of his staff excelled in one language
rather than the other. Most of the translators of the next generation
received their training from Hunayn or his pupils, so that he stands
out as the leading translator of the better type, though some of his
versions were afterwards revised by later writers.

The complete curriculum of the medical school
of Alexandria was thus made available for Arab students. This included
a select series of the treatises of Galen which was

1. De sectis.

2. Ars medica.

3. De pulsibus ad tirones.

4. Ad Glauconem de medendi methodo.

5. De ossibus ad tirones..

6. De musculorum dissections.

7. De nervorum dissections.

8. De venarum arteriumque dissections.

9. De elementis secundum Hippocratem.

10. De temperamentis.

11. De facultatibus naturalibus.

12. De causis et symptomatibus.

13. De locis affectis.

14. De pulsibus (four treatises).

15. De typis (febrium).

16. De crisibus.

17. De diebus decretoriis.

18. Methodus medendi.

The range and method of Hunayn's work is known
to us from his autobiography, the Risalat Huna n ibn Ishaq, letters
written to 'Ali ibn Yahya in 865, of which the text with translation
has been published from two manuscripts in the Aya Sophia Mosque at
Stamboul, by G. Bergestrasser, Leipzig, 1925, a work which has been
analysed by Dr. Meyerhof in Isis, viii (1926), 685-724).

Al-Ma'mun's reign came to an end in 833 and he
was succeeded by his son al-Mu'tasim (833-842), who found it difficult
to control the populace of Baghdad and formed a guard of Turkish
slave-soldiers. But this body-guard, holding a privileged position,
soon became insubordinate and many complaints were made about their
conduct. At last al-Mu'tasim in 836 removed himself and his court to
Samarra, and there the khalifs reigned until 892. These disorders
affected scholarship adversely and the "House of Wisdom" fell into
decay which was not checked during the brief reign of Wathiq (842-7).

As Wathiq's son was too young to occupy the
throne his brother Mutawakkil (847-861) was invested with the
khalifate. His accession made a great change. The previous khalifs had
been tolerant in religion, al-Ma'mun was generally regarded as a
free-thinker, But Mutawakkil was of the strictest orthodoxy and
fanatical in his orthodoxy, possibly afraid of the disaffected attitude
of the Syrian Christians. He was of sadistic temperament, mischievous
and capriciously cruel. Though not himself a scholar like al-Ma'mun, he
was a patron of science and scholarship and reopened the Dar al-Hikhma,
granting it fresh endowments. The best work of translation was done
during his reign, as the training of the staff and experience were
bearing fruit.

Mutawakkil's personal relations with Hunayn
were chequered. It is related that the khalif told him to prepare
poison for his enemies and, on Hunayn's refusal to do so, cast him into
prison. Not long afterwards he was released and Mutawakkil explained
that he had only desired to test his loyalty to the traditional
standards of medical practice. Then a Nestorian physician named Isra'il
ibn Zakariya at-Taifuri, or else his friend Bukhtyishu', denounced him
as a heretic, that is a heretic from the Nestorian standard, for Hunayn
had never conformed to Islam. The Nestorian Church, like other
tolerated religious communities, was selfgoverning in its private
affairs and could punish heretics and other offenders, though the
khalif quite gratuitously comes into the story. It is said that
Mutawakkil ordered Hunayn to spit on a picture of the Holy Theotokos
and on his refusal handed him over to the Nestorian Catholicos
Theodosius who imprisoned and scourged him. The implication seems to be
that the khalif invited him to repudiate Christianity, and when he
refused to do so handed him over to the Nestorian Catholicos for
punishment. Just possibly this vague and confused story contains an
echo of the Iconoclastic controversy which at that time was disturbing
the Eastern Church. Mutawakkil further confiscated Hunayn's property,
including his library, a loss which he felt sorely. After four months
he was set free because of a remarkable cure following his treatment of
a court dignitary, and his goods and library were restored. The whole
matter sounds very much like an intrigue amongst the court physicians,
as on his release the other court physicians had to pay him 10,000
dirhams compensation.

After his release he lived another twenty
years, which he employed in making translations and correcting those
made by others. In 861 Mutawakkil was murdered by his Turkish guards at
his son's instigation. Hunayii enjoyed the favour of that son Montasir
(861-2), and of his successors Mosta'in (862-6), Mo'tazz (866-9),
Muhtadi (869-870), and Mu'tamid (870-892), and was engaged in making a
translation of Galen's De constitutions artis medicae at the
time of his death, which took place in 873 according to the Fihrist,
or in 877 according to Ibn Abi Usaibi'a, who is often inaccurate in
his chronology. According to I.A.U., Hunayn was the author of more than
a hundred original works, but only a few of these are extant. Hunayn,
the greatest of the translators, must be reckoned to the credit of
Jundi-Shapur, although his fuller and more accurate knowledge was
gained by his studies in the "land of the Greeks", for those travels
and studies were prompted and directed by what he had learned at
Jundi-Shapur under Ibn Masawaih.

Although Mutawakkil was bigoted, fanatical, and
sadistic, he was a generous patron of scientific research and is
generally reckoned as having re-endowed the "House of Wisdom", which
probably means that it was reopened after the disturbed period which
followed al-Ma'mun's death and its endowmen ts restored to it. The best
work of this academy was done under Mutawakkil, for by that time
experience told and Hunayn was surrounded by well-trained pupils.

Amongst those who worked with Hunayn must be
noted his son Ishaq, who died in November, 910 or 911,and
his nephew Hubaysh ibn al-Hasan, who was at work in the days
of Mutawakkil. He translated Greek texts of Hippocrates and the
botanical work of Dioscorides which became the basis of the Arab
pharmacoporia (infra). It is noteworthy that most of the names of
planys in Arabic show that they have passed through an Aramaic (Syriac)
medium (cf. Loew, AramaischePflanzennamen, 1881).

Another noteworthy pupil was 'Isa ibn Yahya
ibn Ibrahim who was a translator of Greek medical works into
Arabic. Almost all the leading scientists of the succeeding generation
were pupils of Hunayn.

Although Hubaysh is given as the translator of
Dioscorides, the current Arabic version is more commonly ascribed to
Hunayn's pupil Staphanos ibn Basilos, who translated the work
into Syriac, and this Syriac version was then translated into Arabic by
Hunayn himself (or Hubaysh) for Muhammad, one of the "Sons of Musa".
But another independent version of Dioscorides was afterwards made in
Spain (cf. below).

About 908 the Christian priest lusuf
al-Khuri al-Qass translated Archimedes' (lost) work on triangles
from a Syriac version, and this was afterwards revised by Thabit ibn
Qurra. He also made an Arabic translation of Galen's De simplicibustemperamentis et facultatibus, which was afterwards revised by
Hunayn ibn Ishaq.

About the same time lived Qusta ibn Luqa
al-Ba'lbakki (3. 912-13), a Syrian Christian who translated
Hypsicles, afterwards revised by al-Kindi, Theodosius' Sphaerica, which
was afterwards revised by Thabit ibn Qurra, Heron's Mechanics,
Autolycus, Theophrastus' Meteora, Galen's catalogue of his
books, John Philoponus on the Physics of Aristotle and several other
works, and also revised the existing translation of Euclid.

Abu Bishr Matta ibn runus al-Qanna'i (d.
940) was responsible for a translation of the Poetica of
Aristotle.

Medical and logical works were translated also
by the Monophysite Abu Zakariya Yahya ibn 'Adi al-Mantiqi "the
logician" (d. 974), amongst them the Prolegomena of Ammonius,
an introduction to Porphyry's Isagoge.

To these may be added the late translator Al-Hunayn
ibnIbrahim ibn al-Hasan ibn Khurshid at-Tabari an-Natili (d.
990) also the Monophysite Abu 'Ali 'Isaibn Ishaq ibn Zer'a
(d. 16thApril, 1008), who prepared versions of medical and
philosophical works. With these the series of translators in Asia comes
to an end. After this the work changes to cornmentary and exposition,
occasionaly revising earlier transla tions.

A final phase of translation appears in Andalus
the Muslim occupied Spain. There the fugitive 'Umayyad prince
'Abdarrahman had established an independent kingdom in 755, The eighth
prince of that Andalusian state 'Abdarrahman III in 929adopted
the title Khalif and so from 929 to 978 there were khalifs of Cordova,
usually with strained relations with the 'Abbasids in the east, but
friendly with the Emperor of Byzantium who was their enemy. In 949 the
Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII sent an embassy to Cordova and
amongst the presents he sent to 'Abdarrahman was a copy of Dioscorides
in Greek with painted pictures of the many plants described in the
text. This book attracted much attention, but no one in Cordova could
read Greek, so the Khalif in thanking the Emperor begged him to send
someone who could translate and explain the work. In 95I the Emperor
sent a monk named Nicolas, who was able to speak Arabic, and he not
only made translations of Dioscorides and other Greek works, but began
teaching the Greek language, his lectures arousing great enthusiasm and
being attended by many court officials, including Hasdai ibn Shaprut,
the Jewish wazir. Translations of Dioscorides already existed, that of
Hunayn ibn Ishaq from the Syriac version of his pupil Stephenos ibn
Basilos, and the version made by an-NataIi for the Prince Abu 'Ali
as-Sanjuri. But Nicolas made an improved translation in which pains
were taken to identify the plants described, thus laying the foundation
of a serious study of botany which very quickly bore fruit in the work
of Abu Dawud Sulaiman ibn Juljul (circ. 1000), physician to
'Abdarrahman's successor Hisham II, who wrote a supplement to
Dioscorides describing a number of plants found in Spain, a land
peculiarly rich and varied in its flora, but not known to the Greek
author. Although there was a very productive cultural harvest in
Andalus and the reign of 'Abdarrahman III alusian culture, there does
not was the golden age of Andalusan culture, there does not appear to
have been any further output the Greek there. The Andalusian version of
Dioscorides as made by Nicolas exists in a Bodleian manuscript.
Apparently the older version prepared by Hunayn ibn Ishaq or an-Natali
was quite unknown in Spain.

Thabit ibn Qurra is pronminent amongst those
who revised and corrected Arabic translations of mathematical and
astronomical works, and introduces a new source of proGreek interest.
He was a native of the town of Harran, the ancient Charrae, where men
adhered steadfastly to their ancient paganism, although the deities
worshipped there bore names borrowed from the G7reek pantheon. It was
in the midst of Syriac Christian culture, between Edessa and Rashayn,
situated on the Belias, a minor tributary of the Upper Euphrates. It
was famous for the purity of the Aramaic spoken there, and this was
sometimes attributed to its comparative freedom from Jewish or
Christian influences, though in fact there was a Christian bishop who
claimed Harran as his see and presumably there was a Christian
congregation there. It seems to have been in touch with the renaissance
of Greek learning which affected both the Nestorian and Monophysite
churches and its thought was strongly tinctured with neo-Platonism.

Our knowledge of the ancient religion of Harran
is chiefly gleaned from the observations of ad-Dimishqi, who died in
A.D. 1327, long after the city had passed into obscurity and who could
only have had traditional information about its religion. His
information is summarized in Chwolson's Die Ssabier und der
Ssabismus, ii, 280-411.From that we learn that the
Harranians had five great temples dedicated respectively to the First
Cause, the First Reason, the Ruler of the World, Form, and Soul. There
were seven other temples dedicated to the seven planets. It was an
anomaly for a pagan city to enjoy religious freedom under Muslim rule
and noninterference was not due to the city being obscure as it was the
capital of the province of Diyar Mudar and under the last 'Umayyad
khalif Marwan II it was the residence of the court and government
administration. The Fihrist relates a story that al-Ma'mun
towards the end of his reign passed by Harran on a military expedition,
and he and his officers were astonished at the strange and uncouth
appearance of the townsmen. He asked who they -,vere, and was shocked
to learn that they were pagans. This implies that Harran was unknown to
Muslims generally and a remote isolated district, which is not true.
Al-Ma'mun ordered the people to adopt one of the recognized religions,
Islam, Judaism, Christianity, or Mazdeanism, before he came back that
way. He never did come back, but the people were alarmed at his threats
and many of them conformed to Islam or Christianity: Mazdeanism seems
to have ceased to make converts by then; but others adhered to their
paganism and sought a way to escape the Khalif's anger. A certain
lawyer offered to show them a possible way of doing so for a
consideration, and when they had paid him his fee he advised them to
claim to be Sabaeans (Sabi'a), as those are mentioned in the
Qur'an as one of the "peoples of the Book" (Qur., 2, 59; 22)
17; 5, 73), and no one knew who the Sabaeans were. The story is
obviously apocryphal: the Harranites could not have been so little
known in the days of al-Ma'mun as his father Harun ar-Rashid had
already put pressure on them as heretics and their city had been the
seat of government under Marwan II. The story is an attempt to explain
how the Harranites came to be called Sabacans, a name which we now
recognize as not belonging to them. The real Sabaeans were a people of
South Arabia, with whom Harran had no concern. But the Mandaeans of the
Lower Euphrates, the Haemerobaptists of the Christian fathers and the
rabbinical writers who earned the title of "baptists" from their
frequent and punctilious ablutions, were in Aramaic called Saba'in
from the root SB' "ummerse". Those Mandaeans were Gnostics who inclined
to astrological beliefs, possibly actual star-worshippers. The people
of Harran were not Gnostics, but they had temples dedicated to the
planets, which gave some colour to the confusion between them and the
Mandaeans. Harranite neo-Platonism might possibly be conf used with
Gnostic beliefs. It is characteristic that the Harranites claimed that
their religion had come to them from Hermes. It is an interesting
instance, though not a unique one, of the way in which the Muslim law
was sometimes evaded.

Thabit ibn Qurra (d. 901) "was
originally a money-changer in the market of Harran, and when he turned
to philosophy he made wonderful progress and became expert in three
Syriac, and Arabic.... In Arabic he languages, Greek composed about 150
works on logic, mathematics, astronomy, and medicine, and in Syriac he
wrote another fifteen books" (Bar Hebraeus, Chron., x, 176).
About 872 he was excommunicated by the High Priest of Harran,
unfortunately we know nothing about the ecclesiastical discipline of
Harran and sent to Kafartutha, near Dara, but he remained staunch to
his religion. "Our fathers," hesaid, "by the help of God stood
firm and spoke boldly, so this favoured town never was polluted by the
error of Nazareth (Christianity), and we are their heirs and
transmitters of paganism in these days: fortunate is he who bears his
burden in hope strengthened by paganism (ibid.). He maintained that it
was the pagans who first cultivated the land, founded cities, made
ports, and discovered science (ibid.)." After wanderings in various
lands he met Muhammad, one of the "Sons of Musa", who recognized his
scholarship and took him to Baghdad where he did most of his work. He
made translations of Apollonius, Archimedes, Euclid, Ptolemy, and
Theodosius, or revised existing translations. He also composed several
works on astronomy and mathematics. It has been supposed that he was
responsible for the extremely mechanical form in which Ptolemy's
cosmography was presented to the Arabs, but that hardly seems
justified. In mathematics he introduced the theory of "amicable
numbers", a Chinese idea. Such numbers are those in which one is the
sum of the factors in the other. Thus if P=3(2n)-1, q=3(2n-1)-1,
and r=9(22n-1)-1, assuming that n is a whole number,
then a=2npq, and b=2nr are amicable numbers.
Suppose n=2,then P=3(2n)-1=11: q = 3(2n-1)-1=5:
r=9(22n-1) û 1=71: so the amicable numbers are a=320,
b=284. Nothing very much results from this investigation, but it was
continued by Maslama za-Majriti and a few other Arab mathematicians.

Thabit had a son Abu Sa'id who became physician
to the Khalif al-Oahir. He also was a pagan, but the khalif tried to
convert him to Islam and fell into the habit of using the most
bloodthirsty threats to force him to do whatever he wanted, until the
unhappy physician fled to Khurasan and remained there until al-Oahir
was dead. Then he returned to Baghdad and lived there until his own
death in 943. Thabit had many pupils, one of whom a Christian named
'Isa ibn Asd translated into Arabic various works which Thabit had
composed inSyriac.

About 932-4 the city of Harran was destroyed
either by the 'Alids, as Hamawi says, or by Egyptian invaders as
Dimishqi asserts. The contemporary historian, John of Antioch,
describes

this destruction.

In 975 Abu Ishaq ibn Hilal, secretary to the
khalifs Muti' and Tai', obtained a decree granting religious toleration
to the Sabaeans of Harran, ofwhom there were many in Baghdadsome were
still there in the eleventh century-one of whom the -most distinguished
were the mathematician Abu Ja'far al-Khazin, a convert to Islam, and
Ibn al-Wahshiya, author of a work known as "the Nabataean Agriculture"
(Kitab al-falaha an-nabatiya), which pretended to be a translation from
ancient Babylonian. This work was finished in. 904: it is a collection
of popular beliefs, superstitions, and legends. It gives no real
botanical information but simply aims at proving that the ancient
Babylonian civilization existed ages before the rise of the Arabs whose
culture was a comparatively recent and inferior one. In fact it is an
example of the strong anti-Arab animus characteristic of the early
'Abbasid period. The work had no influence on the development of
intellectual culture amongst the Muslim Arabs.

After its destruction in 932-4 Harran was
rebuilt, but destroyed again in 1032 when only the great Temple of the
Moon was left standing. After these misfortunes it still lingered on
and was visited by Ibn Jubayr in 1184, but in 1332 Abu I-Feda found
only a decaying village on its site.

THE ARAB PHILOSOPHERS

ARISTOTLE dominated the later school of
Alexandria and his influence inevitably passed over to the Christian
world and so to Islam. The Syriac study of Aristotle took form in the
school of Edessa in the fifth century, his teaching then being chiefly
confined to logic. With Aristotle's logical works were associated the Isagoge
of Porphyry and his philosophy generally by the summary of the
Syrian writer Damascius. Fuller study was reached by the use of
commentaries, first by that of the Syriac Probus, then by the
Alexandrians Ammonius and John Philoponus. Now it will be noted that
these works used to interpret Aristotle were predominantly
neo-Platonic, and that neo-Platonic strain remained in Arabic
philosophy and influenced both it and Muslim theology. This influence
was further increased by the acceptance of the abridgment of Plotinus' Enneads,
iv-vi, as "the Theology of Aristotle" and so a genuinely
Aristotelian work.

The fame of Aristotle spread amongst the
Muslims as soon as they began to turn their attention to Greek
scientific material, but for some time his actual teaching, very
imperfectly reproduced at second hand, was all that was accessible to
them. When they knew it better they found it not altogether to their
liking, especially in the doctrine of the eternity of the universe
which contradicted the Qur'anic teaching of creation, the denial of a
special providence which conflicted with the idea of a divine control
of affairs as taught in the Qur'an, and the denial of the resurrection
of the body, all of which seemed to the orthodox little better than
blasphemy. At first Aristotle was accepted only as a logician, but
afterwards translations were made of some of the treatises on natural
science a very unsatisfactory one of the Metaphysics, and to these were
added several spurious works, though of these the only definitely
tendencious one was the so-called Theology.

Aristotelian study proper began with Abu
Yusuf Ya'qub ibnIshaq al-Kindi (d. after 873), commonly
known as "the Philosopher of the Arabs", was of pure Arab birth though
the Chahar Maqala strangely refers to him as a Jew, in spite
of the emphasis always laid on the purity of his Arab descent. He was
bom at Kufa where his father was governor, educated at Basra and
Baghdad, and was still alive in 873. At first he worked as a translator
and did not undertake any original work until he had proved his
competence in making translations of Greek philosophical and scientific
works. He became entirely devoted to the teaching of Aristotle and is
generally regarded as the first of the line of Arab philosophers who
professedly followed the neo-Aristotelian school. It was to such that
the Muslims applied the name of "philosophers", using the term to
designate those whom they regarded as members of a sect definitely
unorthodox in its tendencies. Al-Kindi's own speculations in theology
were of the Mu'tazilite or rationalist type prevalent at al-Ma'mun's
court and which that prince tried to enforce generally by issuing a
decree asserting the Qur'an to be created, not co-etemal with God.
Al-Ma'mun made him tutor to the prince who in due course ascended the
throne as al-Mu'tasim (833-847), and it is said that for him al-Kindi
translated the so-called "Theology of Aristotle ", although that
translation was also attributed to 'Abd al-Masih al-Himsi and with
greater probability, for al-Himsi was a Syrian Christian and it was in
Syria that the work received its readiest welcome. Possibly it was
translated by al-Himsi and revised by al-Kindi. Certainly al-Kindi
accepted it as a genuine Aristotelian work and adopted its teaching,
which shows a type of mystical theology easily inclining towards
pantheism, indeed pantheistic tendencies constantly showed themselves
in Arabic Aristotelianism. Like other rationalists al-Kindi fell under
suspicion at the accession of the rigidly orthodox Mutawakkil in 847
and was disciplined by the confiscation of his library like Hunayn ibn
Ishaq, but after a while it was restored to him.

His chief importance lay in his definite
acceptance of Aristotle as "the Philosopher", no longer simply as a
teacher of logic. He professed to be his follower and took him as
authoritative, practically inspired, teacher, and in this was the
founder of the Arab Aristotelian school, though his actual work lay
chiefly in translating and introducing to the Arabs the teaching of the
Philosopher instead of the vague and inaccurate notions they had
gathered and exaggerated in the process from Syriac exponents. In the
Arabic Aristotelian school the teaching of Aristotle was accepted even
when in conflict with the literal statements of the Qur'an. It was
regarded as truth which was only intelligible to the enlightened,
whilst the Qur'an and orthodox doctrine generally served well enough
for the unlettered and was best adapted for them. Some followers of
this school went farther and held that the Qur'an had an esoteric
meaning disclosed only to the discerning, and that that esoteric
meaning agreed with the teaching of Aristotle, It was the familiar
problem, granted that science and revelation are both true, they must
somehow agree together although they seem to contradict one another.

It was, however, Abu Nasr Muhammad
al-Farabi (d. 950) at the court of Sayf ad-Dawla, at Aleppo, who
really shaped the philosophical teaching of Arabic Aristotelianism,
basing his work on the better knowledge of the text of Aristotle made
accessible by the labours of al-Kindi. Al-Farabi was of a Turkish
family of Transoxiana, but had studied in Baghdad under the Christian
physician Yuhanna ibn Hailam and Abu Bishr Matta, already mentioned as
a translator. He was a commentator on Aristotle and built up a system
of philosophy from Aristotelian and neo-Platonic material, this latter
then generally accepted as the correct interpretation of "the
Philosopher's" teaching, which resulted in a kind of Muslim
neo-Platonism. From this he came to be known as "the second teacher ",
that is to say, the authority next after Aristotle. He accepted the
Qur'an as true, but maintained that philosophy also was true, so the
two must agree: in so far as they appear not to agree steps must be
taken to reconcile them, for truth must be consistent and apparent
inconsistencies can be explained away.

He assumed that Plato and Aristotle were at
one. This was then the accepted view, and as Plato was known in the
neo-Platonic form as interpreted by Porphyry, the resultant svstem was
very strongly tinctured with neo-Platonism. "The more pious added the
third element of the Qur'an, and it must remain a marvel and a
magnificent testimonial to their skill and patience that they even got
so far as they did, and that the whole movement did not end in simple
lunacy. That al-Farabi should have been so incisive a writer, so wide a
thinker and student that Ibn Sina should have been so keen and clear a
scientist and logician, that Ibn Rushd should have known--really
known--and commented his Aristotle as he did, shows that the human
brain, after all, is a sane brain and has the power of unconsciously
rejecting and throwing out nonsense and falsehood" (D. B. Macdonald, Development
ofMuslim Theology,163).It is significant that
almost all the great scientists and philosophers of the Arabs were
classed as Aristotelians tracing their intellectual descent from
al-Kindi and al-Farabi and most of them professed to belong to that
school.

But al-Kindi's more accurate study of Aristotle
had not entirely disposed of the older inaccurate
pseudo-Aristotelianism which had prevailed amongst the imperfectly
informed Arabs of an earlier day. Probably in the opening years of the
tenth century and in Baghdad there was gathered a group of men who
called themselves the Ikhwan as-Safa "the Brotherhood of
Purity" or "the Sincere Brethren", but is more probably intended to
express the term "philosophers", at a time when the recent accession to
power of the Buwayhid dictators produced a temporary experience of
toleration and free thought. Somewhere about A.D. 98o this group
produced a body of epistles or essays which aimed at being a complete
encyclopedia of philosophy and science. These essays are 52 in number
the first fourteen deal with mathematics and logic, 15-31 with natural
science, 32-41 with metaphysics, the remainder with mystic theology,
astrology, and magic. Epistle 45 describes the organization and guiding
principles of the brotherhood. Very commonly the Imam Ahmad is given as
the author of this work, but Shahruzi names five contributors, Abu
Hasan 'Ali b. Harun az-Zinjani, Abu Ahmad an-Nahajuri (or Mihrajani),
Abu Sulaiman Muhammad ibn Nasr al-Busti (or al-Muqaddisi), al-'Awfi,
and Zayd ibn Rifa'a. These letters were produced in or near Basra or
Baghdad. The contents show a kind of obscure and crude type of
Aristotelianism, such the earlier period of the revival of Greek as was
current in curate standard,science, before al-Kindi had set a more ac
but references are made to older philosophies, to Hermes, Pythagoras,
Socrates, and Plato, all confused and vague. Aristotle appears chiefly
as a logician: the "Theology of Aristotle" and the "Book of the Apple"
are accepted as genuine Aristotelian works. No reference is made to
al-Kindi or his work, but Abu Ma'shar and other eighth or ninth century
writers arc quoted. There is no trace of the influence of al-Kindi. The
doctrine contained in these letters is eclectic, the world is described
as an emanation from God, the human soul as of celestial origin and
striving to return to God and to be absorbed in Him, a consummation to
be attained by wisdom, the Gnosis of Gnostic and neo-Platonic
writers. The Qur'anis interpreted allegorically, and reference is made
to the Christian and Jewish scriptures, which are treated in a similar
way. This teaching shows distinctly Shi'ite, probably Isma'ilian,
tendencies, but the language in which it is expressed is involved and
obscure, perhaps intentionally so with the intention of veiling
spiritual teaching from the profane. The Batini or allegorical movement
had its roots in older nonMuslim thought, and presumably had survived
in Lower Mesopotamia where were many ancient creeds, all more or less
mixed up with politically subversive movements: this was the area in
which the Khalif al-Mahdi had tried to suppress the Zindiqs or
"atheists ", and in which the Qarmates afterwards had their beginnings,
the home of the Isma'ilians, in any case definitely anti-'Abbasid and
anti-Arab. In Islam this kind of Batini thought was strongest in the
Isma'ilian sect, it had strong Gnostic tendencies and laid great stress
on the spiritual and esoteric, as against the exoteric (Lewis, Origins
of Isma'ilism, Camb., 1940, 44 sq.). This type of thought is
interesting as it represents the "wisdom "cherished by the Isma'ilians,
by their adherents in the Fatimid khalifate in Egypt and later by the
Assassins of Central Asia and Syria, offihoots of the Fatimids, and
presumably by the Druzes of the Lebanon. Though very far removed from
the natural line of Islamic thought it still forms a living and
vigorous branch of Islam, though it is not Arab

Reference has already been made to the attitude
which was adopted by the "philosophers" towards the Qur'an and orthodox
doctrine generally. This is best illustrated by reference to the
philosophical romance of Haiy ibn Yuqsan "The Living One son
of the Wakeful", composed by the Andalusian philosopher Abu Bakr
Muhammad ibn Tufayl, who died in Maghrab (Morocco) in 1185-8. This book
pictures two islands, one densely peopled, the other believed to be
uninhabited. On the former are ordinary people living conventional
lives and satisfied with the customary observances of the precepts of
religion. Amongst them are two prominent characters, Asal and Salaman,
who by self-discipline have raised themselves to a higher plane.
Salaman outwardly adapts himself to conventional religion, but Asal
tries to discover deeper s ritual truths by meditation: to do this the
better he removes to the other island where he finds one occupant Haiy
ibn Yuqsan who has lived there in solitude from infancy and by the
innate powers of his mind has developed a lofty philosophy and attained
the Divine Vision, so that all things are made plain to him. As they
talk together Asal describes the benighted state of the dwellers on the
other island, and Haiy is so moved with pity at his recital that he
goes over to that other island and tries to preach the higher
philosophy which he has acquired. But he soon discovers that the
inhabitants there are unable to rise to his teaching, and in the end
came to the conclusion that their conventional religion was that best
adapted to their capacity. He went back to his former home and there
devoted himself to a life of solitary contemplation. This led to the
conclusion that religion, as commonly accepted, following the faith
revealed through Muhammad and the precepts laid down by him, is that
most suitable for average humanity: speculative philosophy should be
restricted to the select few who ought not to publish their conclusions
to the unenlightened multitude.

The Aramaean people were an outlying northern
branch of the Arabs, nomads of the desert between Mesopotamia and
Syria. They appear already in the Babylonian-Assyrian inscriptions of
the fourteenth century B.C. as Arime or Akhlame and menaced
the western borders of the empires of the Euphrates-Tigris valley. They
invaded Syria where there already existed a non-Semitic civilization.
That civilization they adopted and developed, but imposed their own
language on the older population. In course of time their language,
Aramaic, replaced Assyrian in the Assyrian Empire, and finally became
the lingua franca of Western Asia under the Persians; entirely
replacing the older dialects of Canaan, and even spreading across to
Egypt. The oldest extant documents in Aramaic are Jewish, the Aramaic
portions of Ezra (4-8-6.18) and Daniel (2.4b7.28) in the Old Testament.
The Aramaic text of Ezra is of an archaic form, that of Daniel is much
later. Of the third century B.C. there are inscriptions from Palmyra
where an Aramaean people lived und-er an Arab aristocracy, and of the
first century B.C. from Nabataea where an Arab peo le used Aramaic as a
literary dialect, if inscriptions can be regarded as literary.

In Christian times Aramaic appears in two
dialectal forms, Western and Eastern, the former with a phonology which
has resemblances with Hebrew, probably representing the vernacular of
the Syrian and Palestinian littoral, whilst the Eastern remains more
true to the earlier Aramaic. The Eastern form is used in the Jewish
Aramaic of the Targums and Talmud (Gemara). The Aramaic of Palestine,
which gave way before the Arab conquest, known to us only in fragments
recovered of recent years from Sinai, Egypt, and Damascus. In the
hinterland Aramaic survived in the western dialect only in some
communities in the Lebanon, but the eastern dialect spread from the
highlands of Armenia to the Persian Gulf and produced a rich
literature. The focus of that literary output was at Edessa, and the
material produced belongs chiefly to the Christian era, though there
was a certain pre-Christian Edessene literature. But most of its
material dates from the third century A.D. onwards. The Christian
Aramaic writers introduced the term Siirave as the name of
their language, a name based on the fact that its home was in the Roman
province of Syria, and from that it is usual to employ the term Syriac
to denote Ch-ristian Aramaic. A distinctive feature of this Aramaic is
the use of the prefix ri- in the 3rd person of the impcrfect tense of
the verb in place of the y- which appears in other Semitic
languages.

The primitive religion of the Medes and
Persians was of the Aryan type. Zoroaster was a reformer who preached
probably in Media (East Persia) in the sixth century B.C. (Thus A. J.
Jackson, Zoroaster the Prophet of Ancient Iran, New York,
1899.) No reference to him occurs in Herodotus, who refers to the Magi
or members of the priestly caste and reckons them as one of the six
tribes into which the Medes were divided (Herodotus, i, 101). The
office of the Persian priests was not to sacrifice but to be present
when sacrifice was offered and recite the proper liturgical formulae
without which no sacrifice was valid (Herdt., i, 132). In addition-to
this exclusive knowledge of the liturgical forms the Magi were supposed
to possess the power of interpreting dreams (Herdt., i, 107). Herodotus
points out a striking &ifference between the Egyptian priests and
these Magi in that the former were careful to avoid taking life except
in offering sacrifice whilst the Magi were under no such prohibition,
but were ready to kill an; animals, except only dogs and men (Herdt.,
i, 14o). The Persian dead were not buried unless their bodies were
first torn by a dog or some bird of prey (ibid.). The religion of the
Medes and Persians hid no idols, no temples or altars, but sacrifice
was offered upon lofty mountains to the universe, to the sun, and moon,
and to earth, fire, water, and the winds (Herdt., i, 131).

This religion, as described by Herodotus, seems
to have been that of the Medes amongst whom Zoroaster preached. It was
probably about the same time the Medes conquered the Persians and
introduced the religious reforms of Zoroaster at least amongst the
ruling Persian aristocracy. It is doubtful whether the Achaemenid kings
of ancient Persia before the time of Alexander were actually
Zoroastrians, but J. H. Moulton's Early Zoroastrianism makes a
good case in favour being so.

The tradition is that the sacred books of the
Persians were destroyed by Alexander, but it is more probable that the
liturgical forms were not yet reduced to writing. Adnaittedly those
forms exist only in fragmentary form.

When the Parthians established an independent
kingdom about 238 B-c- they adopted the Zoroastrian religion and the
"everlasting fire "was cherished and reverenced in the royal city 6f
Asaak, at least until the later Parthian monarchs. Such fragments of
the sacred Avesta as could be recovered were then translated into
Pehlewi, which is a later form of the language used in the Avesta and
inscriptions. The older language was written in cuneiform, but Pehlewi
used an alphabet Of Aramaic origin. The later Arsacid kings seem to
have been devoted to the Zoroastrian religion until just towards the
end when, it is said, the sacred fire was allowed to go out.

Apparently Zoroastrianism had several rivals,
survivals of the older religion which were only partially touched by
Zoroaster's reforms. It was the task of the earlier Sasanids to impose
the Zoroastrian religion and to exterminate those variants as heresies.
The text of the Avesta was revised and completed by a priest named
Aturpat-i-Maraspandan during the reign of Shapur I forced (A.D.
309-379). In 456 Yezdegird II forced Zoroastrianism on Armenia where,
however, it did not take hold permanently. The golden age of
Zoroastrianism and that of Pehlewi literature was the reign of Khusraw
I (A.D. 531-578), and at that time it was still a missionary religion
which the Persian monarchs imposed on the lands they conquered. It thus
spread eastwards as a rival of Buddhism without, however, exterminating
the followers of Buddha. At that time Buddhism was losing ground in
Central Asia, but making substantial progress in the Far East.

According to Socrates (Eccles. Hist., vii,
29) there were two candidates for the see of Constantinople at t. he
death of Sisinnius. One of these was Philip of Side who is described as
an ambitious writer, the author of a work which he called not an
Ecclesiastical History but a "Christian History" (Socrates, Eccles.
Hist., vii, 23), and the other was Proclus whom Sisennius had
ordained Bishop of Cyzicum, but the people of that city refused to
accept him as their bishop (ibid., 28). "At the death of Sisennius, on
account of the factions and rivalries of the church as to the
episcopate, it seemed good to the emperors to appoint neither, for many
strove for Philip, many for Prc>clus, to be ordained. Therefore they
decided to invite one from Antioch, for there was, there a certain man,
Nestorius by name, called the Germanican, a good speaker and eloquent"
(ibid., 29, 1-3). This makes it clear that from the beginning of his
episcopate Nestorius had two sets of opponents to face.

"Nestorius brought with him from Antioch a
presbyter named Anastasius," and he "preaching one day in the church
said, 'Let no one call Mary the Mother of God (theotokos),for
Mary was but a woman, and it is impossible that God should be bom of a
woman'" (ibid., 32, 2-3). At that time, following the Nicene Council,
the accepted doctrine was that Christ had two natures, the human and
the divine, both united in one person, and Anastasius apparently
intended to say that the Blessed Virgin Mary was the mother of the
human nature only. But popular opinion at Constantinople at once
represented Anastasius as reviving the reaching of Paul of Samosata and
Photinus that Christ was merely a man. Socrates, who treats Nestorius
with respect and some degree of sympathy, says that he did not hold
that view nor did he deny the deity of Christ, "but he feared the term
alone as though (it were) a ghost and he was alarmed at this because of
great ignornace" (ibid., 32, 12). "The term" of course means "Mother of
God". It seems a logical deduction from the doctrine that Christ was
God and man at his birth to give the name of Theotokos to the Virgin
Mother, and the term is used by Eusebious (De Vita Constant.,
iii, 43), by Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech., x, 146), and St.
Athanasius (Orat. III c. Arianos, xv, 33), and so must have
been regarded as consistent with Nicene doctrine. Hesychius, a
presbyter of Jerusalem who died in 343, goes further and calls David
the ancestor of Christ "father of God" (Theopator, Photius, Cod.
275). Nestorius' own explanation of his objection to the term is given
by Evagrius (Eccles. Hist. i, 7): "he asserts that he was driven
to assume this position by absolute necessity because of the division
of the Church into two parties, one holding that Mary ought to be
called Mother of Man, the other Mother of God, and he introduced the
term Mother of Christ in order, as he says, that either might not be
incurred by adopting either extreme, either a term which too closely
united immortal essence with humanity or one whilst admitting one of
the two natures made no reference to the other."

At the Council of Ephesus the charge was
brought against Nestorius that he had stated in a discourse that "the
creature did not give birth to the uncreated but bore a man, the
instrument of the Deity. The Holy Spirit did not create God the Word,
but made for God the Word a temp night occupy, from the Virgin...He who
was born and needed time to be formed and was carried the necessary
months in the womb, had a human nature, but a nature joined with God"
(Mansi Concilia. iv, 1197).

The usual view of Nestorius' teaching was that
Christ's body was conceived miraculously by the Holy Spirit in the
Blessed Virgin Mary, but that he was born a man: the Holy Spirit
afterwards descended on Him and then the "Godhead entered into Him.
Such is the account given by St. Augustine (Di Haeresibus, Appendix,
ch. 91). In favour of this must be cited Nestorius' words as reported
by Socrates (Eccles. Hist. vii, 34, 4): "I, said Nestorius, will
not call him God when he was two or three months old."

According to the teaching of Muhammad, a Spirit
came from God to tell Mary that she should bear a son (Qur. 19, 19),
she being then a virgin (ibid., 20), but she conceived without
detriment to her virginity (ibid., 28-9). The miraculous virgin birth
is asserted, but it is denied that He who was born of her was the Son
of God (ibid., 36, 4, 169). The Holy Spirit was given to Him (Qur. 5,
109). His birth is treated as an act of creation: the Virgin Mother
said, "How, O my Lord, shall I have a son when no man has touched me?
He said: Thus, God will create what He will: when he decrceth a thing
He only saith, Be, and it is" (Qur., 8, 42): He is as Adam, created
from the dust (Qur., 19, 17-22; 5, 110).

Hira (Syriac Ijirta) was founded about A.D.
240. It is mentioned as a Parthian town under the name of Ertha in
Glaucus, Fragmenta, ed. Mullar, p. 409, and Stephanus of
Byzantium, Ethnica, ed. Meineke, P. 276. The city consisted of a number
of fortified dwellings of the kind known as qasr, plur.
qusur, each a rectangle surrounding a courtyard, the enclosing wall
having only one door which opened into the courtyard. The upper part of
this wall had loopholes for defense and there was a bastion or tower at
each corner. All the qusur were assembled around an open space which
had no separate defences. There was no city wall surrounding the group,
nor was there any central stronghold or citadel in which valuables
might be stored. Thus when Khalad ibn al-Walid in the autumn of 634
attacked Hira the inhabitants retired to their fortified qusur which
Khalad was unable to take, but they could not bring their herds or
sheep into safety, but had to leave them outside. The Arabs drove off
the animals and turned them into the stnading harvest, at which the
people of Hira asked for terms and surrendered.

The Arab population of Hira lived under the
rule of the royal dynasty of the Lakhmids, whole chief was given the
title of "king" by the Persian monarch. These Arabs were early in touch
with Christian missionaries and a church existed there from the
beginning of the fifth century. Amongst the signatures of the Council
of Seleucia in 410 is that of Hosha', Bishop of Hirta'. This council is
erroneously described by Musil as "Nestorian". The Nestorians did not
come into existence until 430, but there were councils in the Persian
Church before then. For some considerable time, however, the ruling
dynasty and many of the Arab citizens remained pagans. It was only in
the days of the Patriarch Isho'yahb (582-595) that King Nu'man V was
baptized by the Bishop of Hira Simeon. Nu'man's sister Hind founded the
monastery called after her name Der Beni Hind, north of Hira, and there
Isho'yahb's body was brought after his death at Beth Oush and buried.
Isho'yahb died in exile as he had fled from Persia to escape the anger
of King Khusraw. After the capture of Hira by Khaled in 634 the ruling
Arabs were ordered to choose between three alternatives: (i) to embrace
Islam, (ii) to pay the poll tax, or (iii) to continue war. These
demands were made because the Arabs of tera were regarded as people of
Arabia for whom membership of the Muslim confraternity was compulsory.
The conditions did not affect the Aramaic subject population. The Arabs
of Hira consented to accept Islam, as indeed they had already done
before the death of Muhammad, but had afterwards fallen away, whilst
the subiect population remained Christian of the Nestorian Church and
became liable to the poll tax.

In the centre of Hira was another large
monastery known as that of the Son of Maz'uq, and that was frequented
as a pleasure resort by the people on festivals (Ash-Shabushti,
Diyaret, MS. fo. 101r, cited by Musil, The Middle Euphrates,
103).

Hira appears in church history as a stronghold
of Nestorianism, but it had not always been so. According to
al-Ya'qubi, Ta'rih, ed. Houtsma, i, 258, the Iyad tribe moved from
al.yemama to Hira, where they already possessed several of the qusur,
but later was transferred by Kisra' (Khusraw?) to Tekrit, the central
market of Upper Mesopotamia. Tekrit was strongly Monophysite and that
presumably was the religious affiliation of the Iyad so, if they were
Christians at the time of their sojourn in Hira, they must have given
the place an anti Nestorian tone. It is, however, very probable that
they had not yet embraced Christianity when they were sojourners in
Hira, nor is it at all clear that Hira was as yet Christian at that
time.

Though a great Nestorian centre Hira had no
Nestorian academy and Christians desiring a higher education went to
Jundi-Shapur, as Hunayn ibn Ishaq did. From Ibn Masawaih's contemptuous
reference to Hira and its people it seems to have been regarded as a
place wholly devoted to commerce and neglectful of scholarship.

The royal court of the Lakhmids at Mra brought
a tone of luxury and pomp amongst the Arabs which is reflected in the
poetry of those early poets associated with Hira. The older type of
"desert" poet sang about the hardships of desert life and tribal wars,
mingling his song with praise of his patrons and derision of their
enemies. Those poets known to have been associated with the court of
Hira introduced an erotic element and often sang in praise of wine and
drinking parties, subjects unfamiliar to the true desert poet. Such was
not the case, however, with the poet Tarafa ibn al-'Abd, who was
connected with the court of King 'Amr ibn Hind (circ. 554-568), because
his poems were composed before he went to court. Nor was it the case
with Labid ibn Rabi'a Abu 'Aqil (d. 66 i, 662, or 663) who boasts of
being a member of the majlis or senate of Hira, and whose poetry shows
a grave and moral element which may reflect the influence of
pre-Islamic Christian teaching, a tone apparent also in the poetry of
Nabigha and in that of Zuhayr, both favourites of King Nu'man ibn
Mundhir of Hira. The poetry of A'sha Maymun ibn Qays contains passages
which may show the influence of Christian teaching, but other passages
dwell on wine and wine parties either, or both, of which may be
coloured by the poet's intercourse with the Christian wine merchants of
Hira with whom he dealt.

The camp-city of Kufa was founded near Hira
soon after the year 638 and when 'Ali came there in 657 it already was
a considerable town. As it grew the population of Hira tended to drift
over to it. But the two great palaces of as-Sadir ana al-Khawamaq close
by still remained in partial use, and the latter sometimes served as a
hunting lodge for the earlier 'Abbasid khalifs. Hira is now represented
by a mound of ruins south-east of the mound of al-Knedre, half-way
between the ruins of Kufa and al-Khawarnaq (cf Musil, The Middle
Euphrates, p. 35, n. 26).

Eutyches was examined and condemned by a local
synod held by the Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople. The proceedings
of that synod are given in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Mansi,
Concilia, vi, 649 sqq.). When asked to acknowledge that
there were two natures in Christ he refused to do so and for this was
condemned (cf. Eutyclies' letter to Pope Leo in Mansi, v, 1015,
"expetebar duas naturas fateri at anathematizare cos qui hoc negari").
He supposed that the human nature was entirely absorbed in the divine.
This was the teaching attributed to the Monophysites, as their name
implies, those who refused to accept the decrees of Chalcedon. The
difficulty is that those anti-Chalcedonians included several diverse
groups and it was only one such group, that led by Julian, Bishop of
Halicarnassus, which pressed this to a logical conclusion. The
Julianists were described as Aphthartodoketai or Phantasiastae, those
who held that the human body of Chrisi was so infused by the Deity that
it had only the pearance of humanity and was not subject to corruption,
a doctrine denied by he more moderate party led by Severus of Antioch.
Both Severians and.Julianist split into sub-divisions, which does not
concern us at present, and ultimately the Julianists disappeared
altogether, but modern works on theology commonly attribute to all
"Monophysites" the doctrines of the extreme Julianists

Tagrit was about thirty miles north of Samarra
on the right bank of the Tigris and had a strong castle overlooking the
river. The Iyad tribe which had been removed there from Hira by Kisra'
(Khusraw?) had originally come from al-Yernama. Tekrit was a central
market for all the nomadic tribes dwelling between the Tigris and
Euphrates.

In the tenth century Ibn Hawqal noted that most
of its inhabitants were Christians and that there was a great monastery
there. These Christians of Tagrit were strongly anti-Nestorian and
resisted Barsauma's attempt to convert Hebraeus, Chron. Eccles., ii,
67-85). With the rise of Monophysitism they became ardent supporters of
the Monophysite Church. The chief prelate of the Persian monophyites
bore the title of Bishop of Tekrit, but for some time these prelates
resided in the monastery of Mar Mattai, this for security as
Monophysitism was not formally tolerated in Persia, but afterwards
removed to the city of Tekrit. The first bishop to bear the title of
Mafrianus was Maruta (629). There were twelve bishops under the
Mafrianus of Tekrit as metropolitan. the Muslim Arabs took Tekrit in
637 Maruta surrendered the castle to them. In the castle he built a
cathedral which remained the principal church of the Persian
Monophysites. Barjesu, who-was Mafrianus front 669 to 683, built a
church at Tekrit in honour of St. Sergius and St. Bacchus, and later on
this was recognized as a second cathedral. Denha, who was Mafrianus
after 614 consecrated bishops without the consent of the Patriarch
Julian and for this was deposed and imprisoned in a monastery, but at
Julian's death he was restored. He built a church in honour of St.
Khudemmeh who had suffered martyrdom for baptizing a son of the Persian
king, and this church was reckoned as a third cathedral. In addition to
these cathedrals there were several ancient and important monasteries
in Tekrit. The Mafrianus or supreme head of the Persian-Monophysites
ceased to reside in Tekrit after 1513.

Sanskrit was developed as a sacred
language. The results of this development were surnmed up in Panini's Astadhyayi
probably in the fourth century B.C. It is artificial in form, and
some have supposed that it was an artificial creation designed to
counteract the influence of Pali literature by recasting Prakritic
language with the help of Vedic forms, but this is doubtful. Changes
took place in Sanskrit in the course of its prolonged literary history
and much of what Panini teaches is not represented in literature. Prakrit
is an artificial literary dialect derived from older Sanskrit. It
exists in three forms

(i) Primary Prakrit, of which both Vedic and
Sanskrit are literary forms.

(ii) Secondary Prakrit, which includes the
Prakrit of the grammarians and Pali represented in literary form by
speeches, sayings, poems, tales, rules of conduct, etc., and in larger
collections known as pitaka. The Buddhist canon consists of three such
collections (tipitaka) which were finally fixed in Ceylon in the first
century A.D.

(iii) Tertiary Prakrit, which is the source
from which modern dialects are derived.

Al-Anbar "the Granaries" was on the left bank
of the Euphrates and was one of the greater cities of Iraq. It
controlled an important crossing of the Tigris and was the
starting-point of the trade route across the desert to Syria. The city
had been founded by Shapur I who named it Buzurg (or Peroz) Shabur, and
is to be identified with the Virisuboras of Ammianus Marcellinus
24-2.9.22. It was also known as Abbarcon and it was by it that the
young prince Khusraw II passed on his way to seek help from the Roman
Emperor Maurice.

Towards the end of the fourth century the
hermit Mar Yunan made his abode in the desolate environs of the city
and there he died. A church was erected over his grave, but his body
was afterwards removed to the principal church in the city. Outside the
city precincts was the monastery of Mar Yunan, known as the Der
al-Ghurab, to which the citizens went out annually as to a pleasure
resort (Abu I-Fada'il, ed. juynboll, i, 141). This monastery was
founded 'Al al-Masih about 540, and was demolished by the Khalif
al-Mutawakkil in 853. The Christians of al-Anbar or Peroz were
Nestorian and their Bishop Moshe' took part in the Nestorian synod Of
486 (J.-B. Chabot, Synodicon, 53). There was, however, also a
Monophysite Bishop Aha in 629 (Michael the Syrian, Chonicle ed.
Chabot, iv, 413). About 600 Rabban Aphni-Maran founded the monastery
(or castle) of az-Za'faran on or near a high mountain, Jebal Judi,
close by Peroz-Shabur. The name az-Za'faran was given it by the Arabs,
its earlier name was the Monastery of Aphni-Maran of Khurkma.

The first 'Abbasid khalif, Abu I-'Abbas, after
his installation in the great mosque of Kufa, went to al-Anbar and made
his residence, and there he died in 754. His brother and successor
al-Mansur lived there until he removed him to his new capital Baghdad.
In 797 Narun ar-Rashid stayed in the town and found that many Persians
from Khurasan had taken up their abode there. He visited al-Anbar again
in 803 on his return from pilgrimage, residing in the al-'Umr mosque
which was adjacent to the monastery of Mar Yunan, and whilst there had
the wazir Ja'far ibn Yahya the Barmakid murdered.

The Jews were prominent in spreading Arabic
science, especially medicine, to Egypt and the West, North Africa and
Spain, beginning with Ishaq ibn Amran al-Isra'eli, who served at the
court of Ziyadet Allah III (902-3) at Qairawan, been partly as a kind
of lecturer on philosophy. He had been trained in Baghdad and was in
touch with the work done there in translation and exposition of the
Greek authorities. As a lecturer he was a failure because Ziyadet Allah
was so given to pleasure and amusements that he had no attention to
spare for philosophy. Disappointed at this Ishaq devoted himself to the
further study of Greek medicine and became a pioneer in introducing it
to Africa, whence it spread westward to the Maghreb and then to
Andalus. His treatise, Kitab al-bawl, on urine is the best
medieval work on the subject, His "Guide to Physicians", of which the
Arabic text is now lost, was translated into Hebrew as Manhig (or
Musar) ha-rofe'in, and became a favourite manual for Jewish
physicians. He seems to have been the first Arabic medical authority
introduced to the Christian west in a Latin translation by Constantine
the African (1087), which was was afterwards printed at Leiden in 1515.
From his time onwards Jewish physicians, then astronomers and
philosophers, played a prominent part in transmitting to the west Greek
science as known and interpreted in Baghdad.

But before Ishaq there were Jewish physicians
in Egypt and Syria, though there are no details of their activities.
Presumably they were in touch with the renaissance of Greek science
which stirred the Hellenistic world and had its repercussion in the
Aramaic (Syriac) community, and perhaps the Jews had an independent
transmission from Alexandria which was a great Jewish centre. The
medical writer Abu 1-Hasan 'Ali ibn Sahl ibn Rabban (d. 850) was a
Muslim but the son of a Jewish physician of Marw, and was the teacher
of Muhammad ibn Zakariya ar-Razi (Rhazes or Rases), so obviously Greek
medical science had already reached the Jews of Eastern Persia.
Mashallah ibn Athari (d. 815-820), one of the astrologers called in by
al-Mansur at the foundation of Baghdad, is said to have been a Jew. Our
general conclusion must be that there were Jewish scientists, and
especially physicians, in touch with the revival of Greek science which
was in progress during the eighth century, though none of these seem to
have been of great prominence before Sahl ibn Rabban and Ishaq ibn
Amran.

Was there any independent Hellenistic revival
amongst the Jews? It does not appear that such was the case. There was
a succession ofjewish teachers and schools from the last days of
Jerusalem onwards, but these were concerned with the law of Moses and
traditions illustrating and explaining the law. Under the Sassanids
there were distinguished rabbinical schools at Nehardea on the Nehar
between the Tigris and Euphrates, at Machusa on the Tigris near
Ctesiphon, at Sora on the Euphrates about 20 parasangs from Nehardea,
and at Pumbaaitha. These had a somewhat chequered history, but under
Khusraw II they prospered and are said to have incitided scientific
research as well as purely rabbinical studies in their work. How far
this actually was the case is not clear. Samuel of Nehardea (d. 250) is
said to have been learned in astronomy, but at that early date when
scientific material was accessible only in Greek it probably did not
amount to much. Most likely it meant the computation of dates,
festivals, and times of fasting, parallel with the computation of
Easter which passed as astronomy amongst Christians. The fuller
development of scientific studies seem to have come much later and to
have been due to contact with the Syriac world which had adopted Greek
science in an Aramaic version, and to have reached maturity about the
time of the foundation of Baghdad, or a little later under Harun
ar-Rashid. It appears that Sa'da Gaon at Pithom (al-Fayyum) in Egypt
(892-942) who made translations from Hebrew into Arabic was mainly
responsible for making Arabic replace Hebrew or Aramaic as the literary
language of Judaism, and as long as this use of Arabic continued the
Jews were in close contact with contempory Arab scientific and
philosophical thought. When the use of Hebrew was revivied translations
were made from Arabic into Hebrew, and many Arabic scientific works are
now known to us only in these Hebrew versions. A survey of this
material shows that Jewish interest was most prominent in medical
studies. The Jews played a leading part in transmitting scientific
material from Arabic to Latin, chiefly through Cordova, Toledo, and
Barcelona. Earlier Latin versions connect with Monte Cassino, Tyre, and
(Syrian) Tripoli, later with the Dominican friars in Syria, and these
were not indebted to Jewish workers, though they seem to have selected
Jewish works such as these of Ishaq ibn Amran as best suited for
teaching medical science to the Christian west.